Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths

Suzanne Webb: What steps she is taking to increase the number of women and girls (a) studying and (b) employed in STEM subjects and jobs.

Alex Burghart: Between 2010 and 2020, under this Conservative Government, the number of women accepted on to full-time STEM undergraduate courses in the UK has increased by 49%.[Official Report, 25 January 2022, Vol. 707, c. 9MC.] We are utterly committed to ensuring that more women and girls study STEM through funding programmes that boost uptake, such as the Inclusion in Schools physics programme.

Suzanne Webb: Would my hon. Friend be able to let me know exactly how many women are taking up STEM apprenticeships? I ask this question specifically because the electric vehicle revolution in the west midlands is leading the way, and I am keen to see women taking up such opportunities so that they can have a long-term career in high-quality, high-paid jobs.

Alex Burghart: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and I look forward to visiting the west midlands to see that with my own eyes, because apprenticeships are exactly the sort of first step on the career path we are looking to provide for our young people. Women now account for more than half of all apprenticeship starts across the country and our apprenticeships diversity champions network is working with employers across the country to make sure we see the improvement we need.

Margaret Ferrier: The under-representation of women in STEM is informed by a variety of factors. What assessment have the Government made of how careers in niche areas of STEM such as photonics can be better advertised and incentivised for women?

Alex Burghart: We are always doing whatever we can to encourage more women and girls to study STEM. I am delighted to say that the number of women on full-time STEM undergraduate courses has gone up by 49% since 2010. The percentage of women on full-time STEM undergraduate courses has gone up from 34% to 42% since 2010, and A-level science entries are up 36% among girls. Girls now account for more than 50% of all science A-level entries, and women now account for over half of all STEM undergraduates.  Those are significant increases since the Conservatives came to power in 2020, and I look forward to taking that from strength to strength.

Sarah Atherton: Wockhardt in Wrexham made the AstraZeneca vaccine ready, setting the scene for Wrexham to be at the forefront of opportunities. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to encourage young people, including women, into STEM opportunities, and that Wrexham, with Glyndŵr University and Coleg Cambria, is just the place to do that?

Alex Burghart: It looks like I shall be going to Wrexham as well. I am delighted to say that, under this Government, women and girls are driving the STEM revolution that is powering the new economy.

Hate Crimes

Helen Hayes: What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the Law Commission’s recommendations on hate crimes.

Jess Phillips: What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the Law Commission’s recommendations on hate crimes.

Rachel Maclean: The Law Commission published its comprehensive review of hate crime laws on 7 December. Recognising the complex issues that the Law Commission has identified, the Government will carefully consider those recommendations and provide a further response as quickly as possible.

Helen Hayes: Women and girls in Dulwich and West Norwood and across the country are desperate to see action on the sexual harassment they experience daily on our streets and in public spaces. The suggestion from the Prime Minister that these offences should simply be prosecuted under existing laws demonstrates that he is as out of touch with the public mood on this issue as he is on everything else. The Law Commission recommended that the Government undertake a review of the need for a specific offence of public sexual harassment. Will the Minister confirm that the review will be undertaken swiftly, so that new legislation can be brought forward without further delay?

Rachel Maclean: I can reassure the hon. Lady and the whole House that the Prime Minister takes all forms of sexual harassment against women and girls extremely seriously. That is why we are focusing on the Law Commission’s recommendations, which involve a number of complex issues, as she will understand. If there are gaps in the specific laws that tackle this appalling crime, the Government will act.

Jess Phillips: To follow up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), a kite was flown in The Telegraph saying that the Government were absolutely going to put in place a public sexual harassment law, as has been called for, as has been suggested by the Law Commission and as was talked about in the violence against women and girls strategy that was published six months ago. Now  the Minister is standing in front of us and saying, “We are still looking at it.” Was what the Home Office official told The Telegraph right, or is what the Minister is saying right? The Government committed to this law six months ago, so when can we expect it?

Rachel Maclean: I am happy to put on record the official position, regardless of what has or has not been reported in The Telegraph, which unfortunately I have not read. We are responding to the Law Commission’s review as quickly as possible, as I already said to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.

Caroline Nokes: Our Streets Now, Plan UK and a variety of organisations from Girlguiding to the Soroptimists all agree with the Law Commission that hate crimes would best be prosecuted as a specific law. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that she will look for a legislative vehicle to make that possible quickly?

Rachel Maclean: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue again and for representing the views of many across the country. She should be in no doubt that we take these horrific crimes seriously, and that is why we published the violence against women and girls strategy, which sets out a number of measures to keep women and girls safe. We are working at pace to work through the complex issues identified by our legal friends so that we are in a position to bring forward a response swiftly.

Rehman Chishti: With regard to the wider strategy on tackling hate crime, Home Office statistics show that there are about 124,000 hate crime incidents. Under the category religion, there was a real rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism. What will the Government do in their strategy to address those two real issues concerning our society?

Rachel Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend very much for making representations on the important issue of the persecution of religious faiths in this country. The Government take these issues extremely seriously, and that is why we will publish a refreshed hate crime strategy. We are also investing in a number of measures to keep communities safe, wherever they may worship. Freedom of worship in this country is a vital principle that we all believe in.

Transgender Prisoners

Tim Loughton: What the Government’s policy is on placing transgender women with sexual abuse convictions in female prisons.

James Cartlidge: Transgender women can be allocated to women’s prisons only following a rigorous risk assessment, with particular consideration given to the type of offence they have committed and the risk that they pose to others. The result is that well over 90% of transgender women in prison are held in the men’s estate, and there have been no assaults or sexual assaults carried out by transgender women in the women’s estate since we strengthened our approach in 2019. Just to  emphasise, there is an exemption to the Equality Act 2010 requirement not to discriminate against transgender people in relation to single-sex spaces where doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Prisons can and do rely on that exemption.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the protection of women is of paramount consideration when dealing with the placement of transgender offenders in the prison system? On what basis would a male-born prisoner with a record of sex offences against women who now identifies as a transgender woman be placed in a women-only prison?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Just to be clear, the safety of all prisoners is of fundamental importance to the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, and we are particularly aware of the vulnerabilities of many female prisoners. Transgender women who want to move to a women’s prison will be risk-assessed by an expert multidisciplinary panel chaired by a senior prison manager. The panel will consider an individual’s offending history, their anatomy, their behaviour in custody and their use of medication related to gender reassignment, as well as the risk posed to individuals.

Support for Disabled People

Karl Turner: What assessment she has made of the impact of the autumn Budget and spending review 2021 on support for disabled people.

Guy Opperman: Under the 2021 spending review there will be delivery of targeted support for disabled people, including £1.1 billion of investment in helping them to get into work, £2.6 billion of funding for new school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and much more on health and other matters.

Karl Turner: In the autumn statement the Government snuck out a £70 million stealth cut to benefits. I was grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Minister before questions, and I know he is not the Minister responsible, but can he confirm that disabled people will be involved in the process and say how it will affect them? If he cannot, will the Minister responsible write to me?

Guy Opperman: Yes, the Minister for Disabled People will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I can confirm that we will spend the record sum of £58 billion this year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the health and disability Green Paper and the strategy published in the summer of last year, which will be responded to in this House in the summer of this year.

Anneliese Dodds: The Conservatives are simply unable to get a grip on the  cost of living crisis, and disabled people are paying  the price. After failing to act in the Budget, yesterday the Conservatives voted against measures to slash the cost of fuel, which would have disproportionately benefited  disabled people, who are more likely to be in fuel poverty. Indeed, the Conservatives seem to have little understanding of the reality of disabled people’s lives. Can anyone on the much enlarged Treasury Bench inform the House what percentage of disabled people currently live in relative poverty?

Guy Opperman: I will get the Minister for Disabled People to provide the precise stats for the hon. Lady, but I repeat the point that funding for disabled people and people with health conditions is at the record level of £58 billion.

Anneliese Dodds: I find it astonishing that no one on the Government Front Bench appears to be aware that 27% of disabled people in our country live in relative poverty—that is up by 1 million more disabled people since 2010. The situation looks set to be exacerbated by the Chancellor’s £70 million stealth cut to disability benefits in the Budget, of which the Minister seemed to be unaware when it was raised a moment ago. Were the rest of the Women and Equalities team consulted about that stealth cut?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Lady will understand that only the Minister who is asked the particular question can answer. The practical reality is that the spending review has shown that £58 billion is a record sum. It is an increase of nearly £5 billion in real terms since 2010.

Kirsten Oswald: Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy assured me that he has had extensive conversations with the Chancellor about the cost of living crisis that we have just heard about, but what we need is action. Not only have disabled people on benefits lost the £20 a week universal credit uplift, but their benefits are lower in real terms than they were before the pandemic and many face the future with real dread. Disabled people should not bear the brunt of the cost of living crisis, so what discussions has the Minister had with his Treasury colleagues about tackling the toxic blend of Tory cuts, tax hikes, soaring inflation and surging energy bills that is affecting disabled people across the UK?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Lady will know that there is the household support fund, the winter fuel payments, the cold weather payments and the increase in the state pension by 2.5% for this year and by 3.1% next year, and that there is everything from the energy price cap to the freeze in fuel duty, which all go to assist anybody affected.

Covid-19 Vaccinations

Rupa Huq: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of steps taken by the Government to increase the uptake of covid-19 vaccinations where uptake is lower among certain ethnic groups.

Kemi Badenoch: The covid disparities report that I published last year summarised the unprecedented measures we have taken to promote vaccine uptake and includes recommendations to improve vaccination rates further for harder-to-reach groups that the Prime Minister has accepted in full. We have worked with faith leaders and other trusted local voices to overcome vaccine hesitancy and provided  more than £23 million in funding to support the community champion scheme, which we have just extended to support the booster campaign.

Rupa Huq: Behind the boasts of jabs in arms that for a while were distracting from the death figures, until we hit 150,000, are the Government not as worried as I am that the Office for National Statistics is finding vaccine hesitancy among the black British population more than five times higher than among the white population? Among the over-50s, just 44% of Caribbeans and 42% of Pakistanis have been boosted, as opposed to 77% of white British. When are the Government going to admit that their “Take me to your leader” model of community relations just is not working?

Kemi Badenoch: I have to say—and I really do not say this lightly—that the hon. Lady has form in pretending that the Government are doing absolutely nothing, when we are doing so much to encourage vaccine take-up in ethnic minority communities. She will know that in her own constituency of Ealing Central and Acton we have spent £485,000 on the community champions scheme. The hon. Lady will not stand up and let her constituents know what we are doing to encourage vaccine uptake. Perhaps she should focus on the positive things that the Government have done, including in her own constituency. There would be less vaccine hesitancy if Opposition Members stopped scaremongering.

Women in Enterprise

Simon Baynes: What steps she is taking to support women in enterprise.

Caroline Dinenage: What steps she is taking to support women in enterprise.

Kemi Badenoch: The Government continue to support women in enterprise by implementing the recommendations of the Rose review. Our start-up loans company has advanced more than 35,000 loans to women since 2012, worth nearly £300 million, and that represents 40% of all loans.

Simon Baynes: My constituent Kerry Mackay from the Ceiriog valley has overcome hardship and just  been named one of the top 100 most inspirational and dynamic female entrepreneurs in the UK for her business ScrubbiesUK, which makes environmentally friendly cleaning pads. Will the Minister congratulate Kerry and look at ways to raise awareness of the business mentoring and training schemes that were pivotal to her success and that of her business?

Kemi Badenoch: Kerry Mackay is inspirational and I congratulate her and all her colleagues at ScrubbiesUK. She is an exemplar for small businesses, leading the way to help the UK tackle plastic pollution and reach our climate goals. I am glad to hear that she benefited from Government mentoring support, and I will ask the relevant Business Minister to write to my hon. Friend with more details. In the meantime, I hope that people like Kerry Mackay will raise awareness of this opportunity through their own networks, which is often the most effective way to spread the word.

Caroline Dinenage: Covid particularly impacts on women in business, and the sectors in which they are predominant need to be protected by the Government. What more can we do?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some of the sectors most impacted by covid, such as the arts and hospitality, include a high proportion of women-led businesses. She will be aware of the targeted measures to help these sectors that were announced just last month by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, including one-off grants of up to £6,000 per premises for the hospitality sector and £30 million through the culture recovery fund. That support will help female entrepreneurs to keep trading through the current difficulties and make the most of future opportunities as they look forward to the end of the pandemic.

Spiking in Nightclubs

Judith Cummins: What progress the Government have made on their response to young women being spiked by injection in nightclubs.

Rachel Maclean: The abhorrent crimes of spiking also speak to broader issues of violence against women and girls, which is taken extremely seriously by this Government. The Home Secretary has already asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to urgently review the extent and scale of the issue, and she is receiving regular updates from the police. The hon. Lady will know that we are delivering a pilot £5 million safety of women at night fund, which focuses on preventing violence against women and girls in the night-time economy, keeping them safe in public spaces at night.

Judith Cummins: Many girls and women are afraid of enjoying a night out or going to a music festival for fear of being spiked, raped and assaulted. What work is the Minister doing with venues such as bars, nightclubs and music festivals to prevent that from happening and to ensure that appropriate safeguarding measures are in place, and what is the assessment of the scale of the problem at those venues?

Rachel Maclean: The hon. Lady raises a really good point. Those in the night-time economy play a key role and are taking their responsibilities seriously. The Government work very closely with them, and we are providing funding and helping them provide training to their staff so that women can feel safe at night. It is vital that the funding we are providing is being used by local authorities to provide, for example, testing kits and taxi marshals to get women home safely at night. Police are also ramping up their forensic capabilities. There is a lot of work going on.

Conversion Therapy

Mark Jenkinson: If the Government will ensure that proposed legislation to ban conversion therapy will not criminalise therapists and parents for telling children that it is not possible to be born in the wrong body.

Mike Freer: The Government’s proposals will protect freedom of speech. The proposals will not affect a parent’s right to express their views and raise their children with their values. Parents, clinicians and teachers will, of course, continue to be able to have open and challenging conversations with young people or others about their sexual orientation or whether they are transgender or not.

Mark Jenkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. There have been instances of parents being reported to social services for not simply affirming their child’s new trans identity. Will my hon. Friend assure parents that their right to not simply affirm their child’s new identity will be protected in the face of the ideological capture of some of our public services?

Mike Freer: Parents and carers will, of course, have the right to express their views on how a child identifies.

Topical Questions

Rob Butler: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: We are five months away from Safe To Be Me, the UK’s first ever global LGBT rights conference. Everybody should be free to be themselves, but that is not true in too many parts of the world. We will work with friends and allies across the globe to turn the tide on authoritarianism, spread freedom and end the criminalisation, persecution and violence experienced by far too many LGBT people.

Rob Butler: Aylesbury has a sizeable Pakistani diaspora. We have seen excellent campaigns locally and nationally to encourage uptake of vaccines among this community, but in the town’s central wards fewer than half of the people have had the booster so far. What steps is my hon. Friend taking across Government to encourage vaccine take-up among ethnic minority groups, especially those who do not have English as their first language?

Kemi Badenoch: My Department has been working across Government to promote vaccine uptake among ethnic minorities. We have worked with trusted local voices such as faith leaders to spread messaging, and we publish key information and advice via community TV and radio stations, translated into a range of languages including Urdu and Punjabi. In May, I met the high commissioner for Pakistan to consider other ways we can reach out to diaspora groups to promote vaccine confidence and uptake. I should say that between April and October 2021, the largest increase in vaccine uptake among the over-50s was in the Pakistani and black ethnic groups.

Taiwo Owatemi: Department for Work and Pensions data show that four in five black people have less than £1,500 in the bank. More worrying is that approximately one in four black British, British Bangladeshi and British Pakistani people have no savings at all. Energy bills are going up, food prices are up and taxes are up. The increased cost of living will hit minority communities hardest. What action will the Minister take to ensure that minority communities are not pushed into greater hardship this winter?

Kemi Badenoch: We have put, on average, £1,000 a year more into the pockets of the lowest earners through changes to universal credit, increasing the minimum wage next April to £9.50 an hour, and helping with the cost of fuel bills. Our multibillion plan for jobs, which was recently expanded by £500 million, will help people across the UK to find work and to boost their wages and prospects, and this will disproportionately benefit people in minority ethnic groups.

Michael Fabricant: In May 2020, Professor Sarah Gilbert, with help from the Downing Street team, was working on the AstraZeneca vaccine. What more can my right hon. Friend do to encourage more women in biomedicine?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about Sarah Gilbert’s achievements. She was part of our Gender Equality Advisory Council, working across the G7 to give women more opportunities and to enable more entrepreneurship, ideas and innovation around the world.

John Spellar: Does the Minister share my concern that many older workers who lose their job find it difficult to get back into work, either because of employer prejudice or because of an artificial requirement for paper qualifications, with no allowance made for capability or experience; and what is she going to do about it?

Guy Opperman: The DWP has launched 50Plus Choices, which specifically addresses the issues the right hon. Gentleman raises. I will get the Minister responsible for that matter to write to him.

Scott Benton: Outcomes for people in Blackpool in education, health and employment are among the worst in the whole country. I welcome the equality data programme, which is examining how factors such as social background and geography contribute to inequality. How does the Minister expect the programme to reduce the inherent inequalities that have disadvantaged people in Blackpool for decades?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where one lives often has a bigger impact on outcomes than anything else. For example, the wage gap between London and the north-west is, on average, £5.22 an hour. We are examining the drivers of those disparities, and we have appointed Katharine Birbalsingh to lead the Social Mobility Commission and help to propose the policies that will sort this out.

Sarah Olney: As co- chair of the all-party parliamentary group for black, Asian and minority ethnic business owners, I have been working closely with special adviser Diana Chrouch to identify and address the barriers to accessing finance that BAME entrepreneurs experience. A significant issue is the lack of data collected by banks and other financial institutions on the ethnicity of business owners. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the APPG to discuss how better collection of business owners’ ethnicity data can be driven forward across Government?

Kemi Badenoch: I am keen to hear what the APPG thinks the solutions are to this issue. The hon. Lady will know that collecting ethnicity data is a sensitive issue and it is not something that all people want to do, but I am happy to work with her and the APPG to learn about how we can come to some resolution.

Stephen Metcalfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that increasing diversity in the STEM sector is not only good for the individuals who will benefit from well paid, creative and rewarding jobs, but brings a wealth of talent and creativity to an ever more important sector?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need all the talent in Britain on the pitch, which is why it is so important we get more people into STEM, particularly girls and women.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

James Davies: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 January.

Boris Johnson: I know that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Jack Dromey. His working life was devoted to his trade union members and, in recent years, to his constituents in Birmingham, Erdington. I was deeply saddened to hear of his death, and my thoughts are with Harriet, the family and all those who knew him as a friend.
Mr Speaker, I want to apologise. I know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months. I know the anguish that they have been through, unable to mourn their relatives and unable to live their lives as they want or to do the things they love. I know the rage they feel with me and with the Government I lead when they think that in Downing Street itself the rules are not being properly followed by the people who make the rules.
Though I cannot anticipate the conclusions of the current inquiry, I have learned enough to know that there were things that we simply did not get right, and I must take responsibility. No. 10 is a big department, with the garden as an extension of the office, which has been in constant use because of the role of fresh air in stopping the virus. When I went into that garden just after 6 o’clock on 20 May 2020, to thank groups of staff before going back into my office 25 minutes later to continue working, I believed implicitly that this was a work event, but with hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside. I should have found some other way to thank them, and I should have recognised that even if it could be said technically to fall within the guidance, there would be millions and millions of people who simply would not see it that way—people who suffered terribly, people who were forbidden from meeting  loved ones at all, inside or outside—and to them, and to this House, I offer my heartfelt apologies. All I ask is that Sue Gray be allowed to complete her inquiry into that day and several others, so that the full facts can be established. I will of course come back to this House and make a statement.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

James Davies: My constituent Carol Ridgway faces eight weeks of stress and worry as she waits for an urgent appointment at the local breast clinic in north Wales. Despite the pandemic, 85% of patients in England wait only two weeks for their urgent suspected cancer referrals. What can my right hon. Friend do to ensure equality of healthcare across Britain?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sorry about the case that he raises. Health of course is a devolved matter, but I thank our NHS colleagues across the whole of the UK. I point out that the Welsh Government will benefit from an additional £3.8 billion of funding this year, plus a further £270 million to support the response to covid.

Keir Starmer: I join the comments about Jack Dromey. We will, I think, be doing tributes in due course in relation to Jack.
Well, there we have it: after months of deceit and deception, the pathetic spectacle of a man who has run out of road. The Prime Minister’s defence that he did not realise that he was at a party is so ridiculous that it is actually offensive to the British public. He has finally been forced to admit what everyone knew—that when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting boozy parties in Downing Street. Is he now going to do the decent thing and resign?

Hon. Members:: Resign!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think someone will be going for an early cup of tea. Can I just say that the question has been asked? I want to know the answer and your constituents want to know the answer—[Interruption.] I do not need any extra help either.

Boris Johnson: I appreciate the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making about the event that I attended. I want to repeat that I thought it was a work event. I regret very much that we did not do things differently that evening, as I have said, and I take responsibility and I apologise. As for his political point, I do not think that he should pre-empt the outcome of the inquiry. He will have a further opportunity, I hope, to question me as soon as possible.

Keir Starmer: Well, that apology was pretty worthless, wasn’t it? Let me tell the Prime Minister why this matters. Yesterday in this Chamber, hon. Members told heart-wrenching stories about the sacrifices that people across the country were making. The House and the whole country were moved by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) as he talked about his mother-in-law dying alone. He was following the rules while the Prime Minister was partying in Downing Street. Is the Prime Minister really so contemptuous of the British public that he thinks he can just ride this out?

Boris Johnson: I heard the testimony of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I echo the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s sentiments. It was deeply moving; nobody who heard that could fail to have been moved. I know that people up and down the country made huge sacrifices throughout the pandemic and I understand the anger—the rage—that they feel at the thought that people in Downing Street were not following those rules. I regret the way that the event I have described was handled. I bitterly regret it and wish that we could have done things differently. I have and will continue to apologise for what we did, but he must wait for the inquiry that will report as soon as possible.

Keir Starmer: When the Prime Minister’s former Health Secretary broke the rules, he resigned and the Prime Minister said he was right to do so. When the Prime Minister’s spokesperson laughed about the rules being broken, she resigned and the Prime Minister accepted that resignation. Why does the Prime Minister still think that the rules do not apply to him?

Boris Johnson: That is not what I have said. I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes. As I have said, I regret the way things happened on the evening in question and I apologise, but if I may say to him, I do think it would be better if he waited until the full conclusion of the inquiry—until the full facts are brought before this House—and he will then have an opportunity to put his points again.

Keir Starmer: This just isn’t working, Prime Minister. Everyone can see what happened. It started with reports of boozy parties in Downing Street during lockdown. The Prime Minister pretended that he had been assured there were no parties—how that fits with his defence now, I do not know. Then the video landed, blowing the Prime Minister’s first defence out of the water. So then he pretended that he was sickened and furious about the parties. Now it turns out he was at the parties all along. Can the Prime Minister not see why the British public think he is lying through his teeth?

Hon. Members:: Withdraw!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It was what the public think, not what the Member is saying. [Interruption.] I certainly do not need any help from round here. If somebody wants to help me, they can help somewhere else.

Boris Johnson: It is up to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to choose how he conducts himself in this place, and he is wrong—[Interruption.] He is wrong. I say to him that he is wrong in what he has said—[Interruption.] What he said is wrong in several key respects, but that does not detract from the basic point that I want to make today, which is that I accept that we should have done things differently on that evening. As I have said to the House, I believe that the events in question were within the guidance and were within the rules, and that was certainly the assumption on which I operated, but can I say to him that he should wait—he should wait—before he jumps to conclusions, and a lawyer should respect the inquiry? I hope that he will wait until the facts are established and brought to this House.

Keir Starmer: So we have the Prime Minister attending Downing Street parties—a clear breach of the rules. We have the Prime Minister putting forward a series of ridiculous denials, which he knows are untrue—a clear breach of the ministerial code. That code says:
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”.
The party is over, Prime Minister. The only question is: will the British public kick him out, will his party kick him out, or he will he do the decent thing and resign?

Boris Johnson: I just want to repeat: I know it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s objective and he is paid to try to remove me from office—I appreciate that and I accept that—but may I humbly suggest to him that he should wait until the inquiry has concluded? He should study it for himself, and I will certainly respond as appropriate and I hope that he does, but in the meantime, yes, I certainly wish that things had happened differently on the evening of 20 May, and I apologise for all the misjudgments that have been made, for which I take full responsibility.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister is a man without shame. The public want answers to their questions. Hannah Brady’s father Shaun was just 55 when he lost his life to covid. He was a fit and healthy key worker. I spoke to Hannah last night, Prime Minister. Her father died just days before the drinks trolley was being wheeled through Downing Street. Last year, Hannah met the Prime Minister in the Downing Street garden. She looked the Prime Minister in the eye and told him of her loss. The Prime Minister told Hannah he had “done everything he could” to protect her dad. What Hannah told me last night was this: looking back, she realises that the Prime Minister had partied in that same garden the very day her dad’s death certificate was signed. What Hannah wants to know is this: does the Prime Minister understand why it makes her feel sick to think about the way that he has behaved?

Boris Johnson: I sympathise deeply with Hannah and with people who have suffered up and down this country during the pandemic. I repeat that I wish things had been done differently on that evening, and I repeat my apology for all the misjudgments that may have been made—that were made—on my watch in No. 10 and across the Government, but I want to reassure the people of this country, including Hannah and her family, that we have been working to do everything we can to protect her and her family.
It is thanks to the efforts of this Government that we have the most tested population in Europe, with 1.25 million tests being conducted every day. We have been working to ensure that this population—our country—has the most antivirals of any country in Europe. It is because of the efforts of the Government, and of officials and staff up and down Whitehall, that we have driven the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe and one of the fastest in the world. That is the reason that we now have one of the most open economies, if not the most open economy, in Europe and the fastest growing economy in the G7. Whatever the mistakes that have been made on my watch, for which I apologise and which I fully acknowledge, that is the work that has been going on in No. 10 Downing Street.

Antony Higginbotham: Education is one of the biggest factors when it comes to levelling up. It is what ensures that people throughout the country have access to the same opportunities, and it is a key part of my mission to transform lives in Burnley and Padiham. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister work with me to ensure that Burnley becomes the best place for people to study, whether they are in primary or secondary school, looking for an apprenticeship in advanced engineering, or undertaking a degree in cyber-security?

Boris Johnson: We are investing in education up and down the country. I am delighted that Burnley College was successful in its proposal to become an institute of technology, and that Burnley is home to the growing University of Central Lancashire campus, which makes it a fantastic place to study in Lancashire.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: May I add my remarks to those already made about Jack Dromey? He was a feisty fighter for workers’ rights, and an inspiration to many of us on both sides of the House because of the way in which he conducted himself. We will miss him, and I send condolences to Harriet and to the rest of the family.
The Prime Minister stands before us accused of betraying the nation’s trust, of treating the public with contempt, of breaking the laws set by his own Government. A former member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, Paul, wrote to me this morning. His father died without the love and support of his full family around him, because they followed the regulations, Prime Minister. Paul said:
“As an ex-soldier, I know how to follow rules but the Prime Minister has never followed any rules. He does what he wants and gets away with it every time”.
The Prime Minister cannot “get away with it” again. Will he Prime Minister finally do the decent thing and resign, or will his Tory MPs be forced to show him the door?

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I want to offer my condolences to his constituent who wrote to him, and just to remind him of what I said earlier. With the greatest respect to him, I think that he should wait until the inquiry has concluded.

Ian Blackford: It is an open and shut case: this was an event that should not have taken place. It broke the law, Prime Minister.
What is so galling about that response is that the Prime Minister feels no sense of shame for his actions. The public suffered pain and anguish at being kept apart from their families, and all the while the Prime Minister was drinking and laughing behind the walls of his private garden. The public overwhelmingly think that the Prime Minister should resign. Trust has been lost; the public will not forgive or forget. If the Prime Minister has no sense of shame, the Tory Back Benchers must act to remove him. They know that the damage is done. This weak and contemptuous Prime Minister can no longer limp on.
The message from the public is clear: remove this unfit Prime Minister from office, and do it now.

Boris Johnson: Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his political advice, which I will take with a pinch of salt since it comes from the Scottish nationalist party. I think that most people looking objectively at what this Government have delivered over the last 18 months would agree—and I renew my contrition for the mistakes that have been made—that we have delivered the fastest vaccine and the fastest booster roll-out in Europe, and the result is that across the whole of our United Kingdom we have a record number of people back at work.

Simon Fell: On Friday I met the chief executive of my local hospital trust, the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, to discuss how the trust was managing covid and the impact that it was having. That impact is stark. Between 12% and 15% of the workforce are away isolating, and 140 beds—about 20% of the total—are blocked because the hospital cannot get people back out into social care in the community. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the isolation period to five days if it is seen to be safe to do so, and also accepting any MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests that are received, to help get people back into the community and into social care?

Boris Johnson: Yes, we are certainly looking at reducing the isolation period, and we hope to bring you more about that, Mr Speaker, as fast as possible. We will certainly look at all MACA requests, but more fundamentally what we can do to alleviate the pressures in my hon. Friend’s hospital is to fix the health and social care divide. That is what this Government are also doing, after a generation of neglect.

Stephen Farry: Today’s apology is too little, too late. If the Prime Minister were sincere, he could have apologised at any stage over the past 18 months, rather than waiting until he was found out. My constituents in North Down, and people across the UK, feel betrayed by the Prime Minister. We have had more than 150,000 deaths from covid over the past couple of years, and we have seen standards in public life trashed. For once, can the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and resign, for the sake of the public health message, and for standards in our democracy?

Boris Johnson: I can only repeat what I have said: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s feelings about the effect of this pandemic on the country, and I certainly grieve for everybody who has died and who has suffered. On his political point, can I propose that he waits for the inquiry to report?

Suzanne Webb: I recently visited my local jobcentre, and I am pleased to announce that the adult claimant count is down 28%, and the young adult claimant count is down 40%. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Stourbridge jobcentre for all its hard work, and for its dedication in achieving those results and contributing to the jobs revival that is happening across the west midlands, with 61,000 new jobs since March 2021?

Boris Johnson: Yes indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is notable that the Opposition do not like to dwell on these points, but it is an astonishing fact   that we have 420,000 more people in work now than before the pandemic began, and youth unemployment is at a record low.

Steven Bonnar: Another week, another scandal for this Prime Minister and his utterly shameless Government. For two years my constituents made sacrifice after sacrifice, spending time away from their loved ones and missing out on important life events. Some paid the ultimate sacrifice, while he partied away. Figures released just last night show that 79% of people in Scotland think the Prime Minister should step down. Does he realise that it is now clear to all that, although he may not understand how to be socially distant from others, there is no doubt that he is morally distant from the rest of us across these nations, and that the best thing he can do now is to go? Resign, Prime Minister!

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman from the SNP, and I repeat the point I made earlier: I do not think that he should pre-empt or anticipate the inquiry.

Joy Morrissey: The Colne Valley regional park runs through my constituency and that of the Prime Minister. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the volunteers who tirelessly work to preserve that precious green space, and will he work with me to create better protections for that park moving forward?

Boris Johnson: I certainly will, and I join my hon. Friend in thanking the wonderful volunteers. I will do what I can to assist her in protecting that beautiful green space.

Ruth Cadbury: This is a different topic to that raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, but it is related. Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister was asked whether his previous claims about inflation were unfounded. In his reply he told the House that he had said “no such thing”. Within minutes the inevitable happened, and people were watching videos on social media, saying exactly that. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to correct the record and apologise for misleading the House on that matter?

Lindsay Hoyle: That would be inadvertently misleading the House.

Boris Johnson: No, Mr Speaker, because I immediately said in my answer to the question that of course we have to be concerned about inflation at all times. What I said, I think on TV, was that some of the predictions then about inflation had not proved well-founded, but clearly inflation is a serious risk. It is going up, we need a strategy to tackle it, and that is what we have.

Richard Drax: My constituent Grant Bailey went back to Afghanistan in September. He disappeared in December, around Christmas time. We think the Taliban have him. Can my right hon. Friend advise me and his family whether he knows anything about this man, who has him, and what is being done to get him home?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case with me. I will organise a meeting for him with the relevant Minister as soon as possible to establish what we can do to help Grant.

Karl Turner: The Prime Minister has not apologised for breaking the rules and breaking the law; he is sorry because he has been caught. He is bang to rights. When my constituents were making unimaginable—unimaginable—decisions, he was hosting a boozy party in Downing Street. So how does he think he can still maintain one rule for him and another for the rest of the us? He cannot, and he must resign.

Boris Johnson: I refer to the answer I gave earlier.

Peter Bone: This Friday, my private Member’s Bill, the BBC Licence Fee (Abolition) Bill, gets its Second Reading. It will abolish the BBC licence fee and require the BBC to be funded by subscription. In this day and age it is ridiculous to have a state broadcaster, it is ridiculous that people are forced to pay a fee just because they have a television, and what is totally wrong is that people who believe the BBC to be institutionally biased have to subsidise it. Will the Prime Minister, if he is free on Friday, come along and support the Bill?

Boris Johnson: I have the highest respect for the media judgment of my hon. Friend. Though I understand some of his strictures about the BBC, I would also say that it is a great national institution. But I will study what he has to say with interest.

Toby Perkins: We have all had Prime Ministers who we disagreed with or we did not rate, but there has never been one who has debased the office in the way that he has. He is now forced to lie down in the back of his car to keep away from photographers. We all know that the Prime Minister was sacked from two previous jobs for lying, so can he explain to the House why he believes that the great office of Prime Minister can be held to a lower standard than those previous jobs that he was sacked from?

Boris Johnson: I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman makes in the partisan spirit with which I think it was intended. I do not agree with him, but can I suggest respectfully that he waits until the inquiry is concluded, which I hope will be as soon as possible?

Alberto Costa: Washing machine manufacturers are considering installing microfibre filter systems in all new washing machines. Will the Prime Minister ask his Ministers to look at—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have a slight problem. Some Members want to catch my eye, but the longer this question takes, the less time there will be for other people to get in.

Alberto Costa: People are laughing at plastic pollution, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister ask his Ministers to look into the viability of my Bill, which has cross-party support and seeks to introduce inexpensive microplastic filters on all new washing machines?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his campaign. I believe that we should tackle microplastic pollution, and I am glad that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at the introduction of legislation for microfibre filters on washing machines as a cost-beneficial solution. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs keeps him informed of how we are doing.

Virendra Sharma: I, too, wish to join colleagues in paying tribute to Jack Dromey. I knew him first in the early ’70s and worked with him on the Grunwick strike. He will be greatly missed.
Thousands of men and women in Afghanistan supported the NATO mission and they have been abandoned. After six months, we do not have a credible route to help people out of Afghanistan safely. The most recent update from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is directly contradicted by the UN. While the FCDO claims that from spring the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will make referrals to evacuation schemes, the UNHCR’s own website is clear that it makes no such referrals. Are the Government creating a Kafkaesque system to intentionally fail those we owe something to, or is this yet another case of the amateurism and hopelessness that prioritised Pen Farthing’s pets over human beings?

Boris Johnson: I believe the hon. Member does a serious injustice to the efforts of local councils up and down the country to look after people coming from Afghanistan and I think he does an injustice to the efforts of the UK. We are proud under Operation Pitting to have already evacuated 15,000 people from Afghanistan. We have allocated £286 million in assistance for people in Afghanistan and we are continuing to offer safe passage to this country from Afghanistan.

Paul Holmes: The Prime Minister will be aware that Eastleigh was formed as a railway town and, from producing locomotives and carriages to building gliders for the D-day landings, Eastleigh has a proud railway heritage. Given that pedigree, its excellent transport links and the need to level up the south, does he agree that Eastleigh would make the perfect home for the new headquarters of Great British Railways?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a great champion for Eastleigh. As I told the House earlier, further details of the competition to identify the new Great British Railways headquarters will be announced in the coming weeks.

Navendu Mishra: In my Stockport constituency, the average rent for a two-bedroom property is an unaffordable £800. Rents have significantly increased in the last 13 years. One constituent recently contacted me to explain that she and her husband, who are in their 70s and suffer from ill health, have just been served with a section 21 notice after living in the property for almost 20 years. The Prime Minister’s own manifesto promised a better deal for renters, which included abolishing no-fault evictions.   So when will he scrap that practice and reintroduce the much-needed renters’ reform Bill, which seems to have been kicked into the long grass?

Boris Johnson: One of the first things that I did when I became Prime Minister was to uprate local housing allowance so that people on social rent would be able to afford where they live more easily, as a key component of tackling the cost of living. We are also building record numbers of homes. I was very pleased to see a huge increase in the number of people able to get the homes that they need, but the hon. Member’s point about renters is also very important, and that is why we are tackling the rights of renters as well.

Jack Brereton: £56 million through the levelling up fund and £40 million through transforming cities—that is just some of the investment that we have recently secured for Stoke-on-Trent. Will my right hon. Friend agree that, after decades of neglect, this Conservative party is the only party that is levelling up opportunities in Stoke-on-Trent?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion for Stoke-on-Trent. In addition to all the things that we are supporting in Stoke-on-Trent, I am delighted to say that it will become home to the Home Office as well.

Philippa Whitford: This session shows how much of a distraction the Prime Minister’s behaviour has been. After a recent survey showed that 37% of small businesses felt totally unprepared for the introduction of import controls, rules of origin and the upcoming sanitary and phytosanitary checks, will he listen to the Federation of Small Businesses and introduce financial and technical support for those small businesses, or is he just too busy drinking in his garden?

Boris Johnson: What we are doing is offering financial and technical support to businesses, which are responding magnificently. As we come out of the pandemic, as I said to the House earlier, we are seeing record numbers of people in work and youth unemployment at a record low.

Alicia Kearns: The motto of England’s smallest county, Rutland, is “multum in parvo”—much in little—and never has that been more true than in the last two weeks, with the greatest Roman discovery in 200 years and the discovery of an ichthyosaur, the greatest fossil discovery in 100 years. Will my right hon. Friend please support us to build a new tourism industry and two heritage museums in Rutland to preserve these amazing discoveries in our county?

Boris Johnson: I am agog. I long to come to see these extraordinary additions to the cultural heritage of Rutland. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention, and I look forward to making a visit as soon as I can.

Daniel Zeichner: The Government’s flagship green homes grant scheme collapsed in a £1.5 billion shambles at the end of last year, with just 81 vouchers issued in Cambridge and just 85 issued   in the Prime Minister’s constituency. With energy bills about to go through the roof, what is it about this Government that makes them so peculiarly unable to run a basic loft-lagging scheme?

Boris Johnson: We are supporting measures to retrofit homes up and down the country to improve insulation. We are also supporting people with the costs of their fuel, and we will continue to do that through the warm homes discount, the winter fuel allowance and all the other payments we make.

Virginia Crosbie: Can the Prime Minister confirm to me and my Ynys Môn constituents that the UK Government are committed to at least one freeport in Wales? Will he update the House on how discussions are progressing with the Welsh Government?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is indeed talking to his counterparts in the Welsh Government about establishing a freeport in Wales. I urge our friends in the Welsh Government to agree those plans as a matter of urgency.

Vicky Foxcroft: The Government commissioned the National Centre for Social Research to research the use of health and disability benefits, but they have yet to publish the findings. Their own protocol for publication states that social research
“must be released in a way that promotes public trust.”
The cost of living crisis is hitting disabled people hard, at a time when many people are already struggling. It is surely time to start rebuilding their trust, so will the Prime Minister commit today to publishing that research?

Boris Johnson: We will do everything we can to support people throughout the recovery from the pandemic, we will support disabled people and we will continue to increase our support for families up and down the country. The hon. Lady requests that we publish the research, and we will do so as soon as we can.

Mark Jenkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued support for new nuclear. Following the Third Reading of our landmark Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill this week, will he put his weight behind my efforts and those of my Cumbrian colleagues to bring large and small new nuclear to Cumbria?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is right that one of the disasters of the Labour Administration was that, over 13 years, they allowed a total collapse in our nuclear power, which is one of the reasons why we have a shortage of energy. That is why we are now investing in small modular reactors, as well as investing in the big projects.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister did not spot that he was at a social event. That is the excuse, isn’t it? Come off it. How stupid does he think the British people are? The worst of it is that he has already managed to completely destroy Allegra Stratton’s career and tarnished the reputation of Lord Geidt, and now he is making a fool of every single MP who cheered him earlier and everyone who goes on the radio and television to defend this shower of shenanigans.  Would it not be absolutely despicable if, in the search for a scapegoat, some junior member of staff ended up losing their job while he kept his?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Gentleman—I think a former member of the Conservative party, as I understand it—for his party political advice. I do not agree with him. I have come to this House to make amends, to explain what happened on 20 May and to apologise. I really think, with all humility, I must ask him to wait for the result of the inquiry, when he will have abundant opportunity to question me again and to make his party political points again. Until then, I am going to ignore his advice.

Jonathan Gullis: Hundreds of respondents took part in the Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke Bus Back Better survey, in which 80% said they would use the bus more if services were improved. The Conservative-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council has submitted a fantastic Bus Back Better bid for £90 million to improve our infrastructure and our services, so will the Prime Minister make our day in Stoke-on-Trent and announce that that money is coming soon?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his fantastic championing of Stoke-on-Trent. I also thank him for volunteering to serve as a teacher again during the pandemic—a wonderful thing to do. I will certainly see what we can do to satisfy his request for more buses in Stoke as fast as possible.

Edward Davey: I join the tributes to Jack Dromey, an outstanding trade unionist and Member of this House.
After another shameful week for the Prime Minister’s Government, this has been a shameful attempt to apologise to the House today. Can the Prime Minister explain why the only person to have resigned so far following this scandal is Allegra Stratton, a woman, while he, the man who sanctioned and attended at least one party in 10 Downing Street, still sits in his place? Advisers advise and Ministers decide. So will the Prime Minister, for the good of the country, accept that the party is over and decide to resign?

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I respect the point he is making, but I must say I disagree. I would ask him to wait and see what the inquiry says. I will be very happy to talk to  him then.

Vaccination Strategy

Miriam Cates: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to provide an update on the Government’s vaccination strategy.

Maggie Throup: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. We have built three lines of defence to give us the best chance of living with covid-19 and avoiding strict measures: vaccination, testing and treatments. Vaccination is the most important of those three, especially in light of the new omicron variant. Recent data from the UK Health Security Agency shows that unvaccinated people are between three and eight times more likely to be hospitalised with covid-19, so every jab counts in keeping people out of hospital and saving lives.
Since omicron began making its way around the world, our strategy has been to massively expand vaccination. We set the highly ambitious target of ensuring that everyone eligible for a booster would be offered one by the end of December, and we met that target. Some 80% of eligible adults in England have now had the booster, including 87% of people over 50. That means that, per capita, we are the most boosted large nation on the planet. In addition, more than 1.4 million young people aged 12 to 15 have already had their first dose since the vaccine was rolled out to that age group in September, with thousands still getting jabbed every day. As of 10 January, eligible children aged 12 to 15 are being offered a second dose in their school. The vaccination effort is a vital part of ensuring the safe return of pupils to the classroom after Christmas, and the continuity of in-person education, which we know is so important for their development.
Throughout our vaccine programme, we listened to the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, whose clinical expertise is second to none. As we have done so, our vaccination strategy has been highly successful, allowing us to live with fewer restrictions than many other places around the world and keeping our children in education settings, where they belong. Once again, I underline my thanks to everyone who has made our national vaccination programme possible, including the JCVI, the NHS, our vaccines taskforce, the vaccinators and all volunteers across the country. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking them for everything that they have achieved.

Miriam Cates: I thank the Minister for her statement. The UK’s vaccine roll-out has indeed been enormously effective, but in September the JCVI expressed concerns about a child vaccination programme because of uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential harms. Following advice from the chief medical officer, the Government pushed ahead with the mass vaccination of healthy children on the basis that, although the benefits to children’s health were marginal, it may reduce transmission and keep kids in school. Around 50% of 12 to 15-year-olds have now been jabbed, so what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the vaccination programme in keeping children in face-to-face education?
Now that the omicron variant is dominant and more evidence is available, the benefits and risks of vaccinating children may have changed. What assessment has been made of the risk of hospitalisation of healthy children due to omicron compared with delta? Evidence is emerging that vaccination has minimal impact on omicron transmission, so what reassessment have the Government made of the potential future impact of child vaccinations on reducing transmission in schools? Given a recent Centres for Disease Control and Prevention study showing that the risks of myocarditis in young people following vaccination may be greater than previously thought, and compounded by multiple doses, will the Government urgently review the potential harms of vaccinating children?
This weekend, the NHS put out a press release encouraging more children to get jabbed, including the line:
“Young people can get their life-saving protection”.
It also said:
“Vaccines will protect young people from Omicron”.
Where is the evidence for those claims, and does the Minister believe that that communication meets the commitment not to put pressure on children? Lastly, given the evidence on transmission, will the Government push ahead with the compulsory vaccination of NHS staff, and will they insist on a booster dose for all staff every few months? If not, where is the evidence that compulsory vaccination of staff will increase patient safety in the long term?

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise some of her concerns. We need to start from scratch, remembering that it is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which is the highly thought of regulator, that has deemed the vaccine to be safe for this age group. As a result, the JCVI provided its recommendations, and our chief medical officers across all four nations added to that. The vaccine has already been given to millions of 12 to 15-year-olds in a number of countries, including 8 million in the United States. Data from those countries shows that the vaccine has a good safety record. I am completely confident that the JCVI would not make those recommendations if there were any doubt at all. That is why all eligible 12 to 15-year-olds are able to book their second jab. It is the best way to protect young people and make sure that they are kept in education. We all know that face-to-face education is one of the most valuable things for young people, and we will do whatever we can to keep them in that position.
We must recognise that myocarditis occurs as a result of covid infection as well. We need to get the balance right to ensure that we are doing whatever we can to protect the majority of young people and make sure that they are kept in education in a timely manner. I think it is right that we continue to follow the scientific evidence and the clinical advice, as we have done throughout this pandemic.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing this urgent question; you, Mr Speaker, for granting it; and the Minister for her statement.
Our incredible NHS has moved heaven and earth during the vaccine roll-out and has achieved an extraordinary amount in the face of profound challenges. As the Minister makes clear, it is only through vaccination that we can begin to contemplate building a world beyond covid. I would therefore be grateful if she explained what assessment she has made of the current vaccine take-up rates, which have dropped to the lowest level since mid-October, and what plans she has to ramp them up again.
Will the Minister also clarify what action the Government will take to drive up vaccination rates among 12 to 17-year-olds, following media reports of children having to wait until February and travel 50 miles to get an appointment for their first covid-19 vaccination? Will she advise the House on what steps she is taking to persuade those who have yet to have the vaccine to do so as soon as possible, and what action her Department is taking to tackle the raft of misinformation about the vaccine that continues to circulate on social media and beyond, doing real damage to public health messages? I would also be grateful if she gave an assessment of the impact on vaccination rates of the introduction of NHS covid passes.
Over the course of the pandemic, immunocompromised, immunosuppressed and clinically extremely vulnerable people have been badly let down. They are crying out for further clarity, and recent reports highlight that more than 300,000 housebound people are yet to receive their booster. Will the Minister take this opportunity to provide the vital clarity that people need and set out the Government’s booster vaccination strategy for housebound, clinically vulnerable and clinically extremely vulnerable people?
Lastly, will the Minister outline what further steps are being taken to vaccinate the world? As the development of omicron shows, delay with regard to global vaccination has stark public health consequences here at home. With reports of the UK discarding hundreds of thousands of vaccines over the past few months, can she reassure the House that assisting with vaccinating the world remains a priority for her Department and this Government?

Maggie Throup: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his measured approach. We have seen throughout the pandemic that everybody working together gets us where we need to be, which is making sure that people are safe.
The hon. Gentleman asked a few questions about the current vaccine programme and the uptake rate. I am delighted that about 80% of people over 18 have now been boosted, which is a fantastic achievement. Over 90% of the population aged 12 or over have had their first dose and 83% have taken up the offer of a second. I reiterate that the offer of a first and second dose is always there. If people have not yet come forward for their first dose, it is not too late: they can go to a walk-in centre or make an appointment through the national booking service or their GP to get that all-important vaccine.
With regard to 12 to 17-year-olds, the school-age immunisation service has started to roll out again this week. People can also take the out-of-school offer through the national booking service or the walk-in sites. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a case where somebody had to travel 50 miles. We did look into that   situation, and it was not quite right. We have been in touch with that member of the public, and the situation has been resolved.
Housebound patients are the responsibility of the primary care network or the clinical commissioning group, depending on the local scenario. Every housebound patient has been offered their booster vaccine now, but if the time was not quite right, or any Member has taken up such a case with their CCG and not had a solution, I would be happy to take the case up on their behalf.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the ambition not just to vaccinate the UK but to make sure that people globally are protected. I am delighted to announce that, as of the end of last year, we donated 30 million doses, partly through COVAX and partly through bilateral agreements, which is a great achievement, and we have a commitment in place for 100 million doses by the end of June this year.

Jeremy Hunt: This country has one of the best vaccination programmes in the world and the very best in Europe. We should remember that the foundations were put in place when, at the height of the first wave, the then Health Secretary bought 400 million doses of vaccine that we did not even know would work. That has meant that we are now emerging sooner and more broadly than nearly anywhere else. But that success was also because a lot of GPs in the NHS were diverted away from their normal work into the vaccination programme, and that has come with costs in terms of the other treatments they are not able to deliver. When will we see a workforce plan that takes account of the new responsibilities for vaccination that the NHS will have? When will the budget for Health Education England be agreed, because two and a half months before the next financial year we still do not know what it is? Will the workforce plan have independent forecasts so that we can make sure we are training enough doctors and nurses for the future?

Maggie Throup: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He has made it his ambition, as has the Department, to ensure that we have the right workforce in place. He raises a really good point about the vaccines and how we continue to administer them—not just the covid vaccine but the flu and other vaccines that we have throughout our lifetimes. We have learned an awful lot from rolling out the covid vaccine programme, and like my right hon. Friend I commend the vaccine taskforce for having the foresight to look beyond what some other countries did, to make sure we had the vaccines in place when we needed them.
We do need to look again at how we maximise what has been such good will. In terms of the vaccinators who have come forward, some were not trained as vaccinators before. As I travel around some of the vaccine sites, I meet people from all backgrounds who have taken up the challenge to come forward and become vaccinators. The other day, I actually met a builder who is now a vaccinator, and he is loving every minute of it. I also thank the volunteers who have come forward and made sure that this programme has been so effective. It is about bringing together what we have learned in this programme over the last year to make sure that we can roll out other programmes in an effective manner.

Steven Bonnar: Once again Scotland has set an example for the UK, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all those NHS and frontline key workers involved in the excellent vaccination roll-out programme. We lead the way on first and second doses administered, and we rank second worldwide for the most successful booster roll-out programme, with over 80% of our adult population given their third vaccine. The rest of the UK also has one of the highest vaccination records in the world, along with most of Europe. Is it not well past time to begin a serious campaign of vaccine sharing and the vaccination of those who have so far been left behind in our global community?
Secondly, when the booster roll-out does wind down, will the UK Government commit to shifting the momentum from domestic vaccination to vaccination sharing with the poorest countries? While we welcome the 30 million doses that have been donated, they are a mere drop in the ocean in terms of what is actually required. Lastly, will this Tory Government finally show a shred of compassion for the plight of those around the world?

Maggie Throup: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about ensuring that rural communities have access to vaccines, and that is exactly what we have done through our programme. We have made sure that walk-in centres have been stood up, as well as other ways for people to access vaccines such as vaccine buses, so that community pharmacists can deliver in rural settings and among hard-to-reach groups. Whether in rural or urban areas, it is important that we use every possible route—for example, working through community groups, local leadership and faith groups—to put everything in place to ensure that everyone has access to the life-saving vaccines.
I reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), that to date we have donated 30 million doses to COVAX and bilaterally.  We will continue to fulfil our commitment to donate 100 million jabs globally by the end of June this year.

Nusrat Ghani: I was not expecting to be called, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on securing this important urgent question. Reflecting on what the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), said about workforce planning, I know that in my constituency, Wealden, and across East Sussex, there is huge concern about accessing healthcare and treatment. Will the Minister explain what risk assessment has been done of how, if unvaccinated staff—as many as 88,000—leave the NHS, treatment will be made available and how my constituents will be able to access day-to-day healthcare and treatment?

Maggie Throup: I think my hon. Friend is referring to vaccination as a condition of employment. I should like to inform the House that already over 93% of the NHS workforce have had their first jab, which is incredible. It is the will of the House, expressed before Christmas, that we implement this policy. Peer-to-peer conversations are going on to make sure that people have the right information they need to take up the offer of a jab, which not only protects them but protects their patients, who are some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Florence Eshalomi: I pay tribute to the hard-working staff at St Thomas’ Hospital in my constituency, who have helped many Members of this House to receive their booster jab, and to the many volunteers throughout Vauxhall. The Minister outlined that 90% of people have had their first dose and over 80% their second. With the emergence of omicron, we have seen that unless everyone is vaccinated, we are not safe. We are not safe until everyone is safe, but around the world there are still places where people are not receiving vaccines. Will she outline what work the Government are doing to make sure that there are enough vaccines globally to ensure equitable access for everyone?

Maggie Throup: I also pay tribute to the staff at St Thomas’ Hospital. I visited the vaccination centre there and was really impressed by the way it is set up, with the paediatric side as well, and by all the volunteers who were there making sure that everyone felt comfortable about going forward. Some of the people there had thought for quite some time about taking the plunge and getting their first dose, so I thank the staff for their work.
The hon. Lady makes a good point when she says that we are not safe until everyone is safe. I reiterate our commitment to COVAX, not just through donating vaccines but financially as well. Just over a year ago, the first AstraZeneca vaccine jab in the world was given to a gentleman in Nottinghamshire. As a result of our collaboration with Oxford University and AstraZeneca, those jabs continue to be delivered at cost throughout the world. That is a really good outcome of the Government’s investment.

Edward Leigh: Given its success, I believe we should now place our faith in the vaccination strategy and not in further controls. When I voted against plan B before Christmas, I said that more and more regulation creates more and more hypocrisy. Despite what is going on in Russia and the cost of living, we spent most of Prime Minister’s questions debating the fact that the Prime Minister wandered out of his house, where he lives and works, and had a drink with colleagues. The truth is that the Government should learn a lesson from this. We must sweep away every last vestige of telling people how to live their lives. We have had enough of it. The British people have had enough of it. These controls are actually making things worse—for example, forcing staff to isolate and putting our NHS at risk—so please, let us free the people.

Maggie Throup: I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will not have the restrictions in place for a day longer than necessary. He is aware that the current plan B restrictions will be reviewed on 26 January.

Ben Bradshaw: Many hon. Members have constituents whose long-awaited treatments and operations are being cancelled because hospitals are full of the unvaccinated. We in England have one of the most indulgent approaches to the unvaccinated. Why does the Minister not follow the example of New Zealand, Australia and the rest of Europe and do much more to incentivise people to get vaccinated?

Maggie Throup: I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are doing what we can to ensure that people get vaccinated. Some of the stats speak for themselves: people are eight times more likely to be hospitalised if they are unvaccinated and more than 60% of those in ICU are unvaccinated. We are not a nation that forces people to do things unnecessarily. The behavioural insights team across Government has been looking at different ways to get those who have not come forward yet to get their jab and at the pros and cons of different ways of doing that. At the moment, I think we have the right approach, which is explaining why it is important for them to come forward to get a jab.

Desmond Swayne: The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) was about whether there was a reassessment of the strategy on the basis of what we know now about omicron that we did not when the strategy was set out. Will the Minister answer that, particularly in respect of the policy of sacking NHS staff who are not vaccinated, given that we know that the rationale has disappeared because it does not stop people from catching it or from infecting others?

Maggie Throup: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, but I go back to the MHRA, which is globally recognised as one of the best regulators and has advised that,
“the benefits of vaccination still outweigh any risk in most individuals.”
With regards to myocarditis, to which I think he was referring as well, it is greater in those children who have been infected with covid than in those who have been jabbed. I must stress, however, that instances of both those circumstances are extremely rare. The JCVI continually reviews all the data.

Daisy Cooper: It is clear that the Government need a new strategy for driving up vaccinations among the unvaccinated. Around the country, there are practical examples of things that are working that they could roll out nationally. Will the Minister commit to looking at ideas such as vaccine tracing; the offer of an on-the-spot vaccination when somebody comes into contact with any part of the NHS; and the offer of free cabs for those who are struggling to get to a vaccination centre because of the cost or caring arrangements? Those things are working already, yet they are not being rolled out nationally.

Maggie Throup: I reassure the hon. Lady that many different measures are being put in place across the whole country depending on what works in different specific areas. For example, there are pop-up clinics in mosques and temples; there have been all-female clinics that help different communities; and there have been clinics in restaurants in certain parts of Bradford. There is a wide range of measures because, as she rightly indicated, there is not one solution for everybody. The fact that more than 90% of people have already had their first dose is a huge success, but the last few are the hardest to reach. That is why we are putting in place different measures to ensure that we do the right thing for individuals in different places and look at what will work for individuals across different communities.

Steven Baker: When what is at stake is the balance of health risk for children right across Wycombe and every constituency in the whole country, is my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) not absolutely right to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to task the JCVI and the medical officers with a reassessment of new evidence? My hon. Friend just said at the Dispatch Box that evidence is kept under continuous review—and she nods—so why can she not please say at the Dispatch Box that she will ask the experts to revisit the new evidence, just to check that the balance of health risk for children is still appropriate and that she is satisfied with the responsibility, which she bears, for the decision that has been taken?

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend is quite right that we do bear responsibility. I do not take these decisions lightly at all and neither does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is why the JCVI and the CMO continually review not just the UK data but the national data for every age range, every vaccine and every eventuality. The CMO will have heard my hon. Friend’s request and I am sure he will be completely focused on making sure that the JCVI continues to monitor the situation in the specific way my hon. Friend asks for.

Clive Betts: First, I congratulate everyone in Sheffield—including GPs, the hospitals and the city council—who worked brilliantly together to deliver thousands of vaccines in the run-up to Christmas.
I want to ask about people with compromised immune systems, and I declare my own interest in that. Having the third dose, followed by a booster, is absolutely right, but to begin with there was a lot of confusion about whether the consultant or the GP should be responsible for contacting people. I think it has just about been sorted out, but I have received an email today from my constituent Jeanette, who says that although everyone in her situation should have received a letter offering the availability of new treatments, she got a letter but her husband did not; that although everyone should have been sent a PCR test in the post, she did not get one; and that although she was told to ring 119, when she did so she could not find the option to complain that she had not received a PCR test. Will the Minister have a look at who is responsible for the availability of new treatments and the sending of PCR tests, and at what happens when things do not happen properly?

Maggie Throup: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important part of our strategy to make sure we can react quickly in respect of those with certain conditions. Giving them ready access to the antivirals is the third part of our strategy to combat coronavirus. GPs and hospital consultants should link up to make sure that the right conditions are considered. I advise the hon. Gentleman’s constituent initially to contact  her GP to make sure that she fits the category. If she  has received the letter but no PCR test, she should contact 119—Test and Trace—

Clive Betts: She can’t!

Maggie Throup: Or she should go online to find out whether there has been a mismatch in the data. If she has received the letter saying that she should receive the  PCR so that she can do one if she has symptoms, we just need to make sure that she gets one delivered to her home.

Derek Thomas: It is great news that the Minister reports that 93% of NHS staff have received the vaccine—that is fantastic—and I commend every effort made to encourage NHS staff and all those involved in the delivery of care to receive the vaccine, but what will the Government do if, in a few weeks, a critically high number of people in the NHS have still not had the vaccine? Will they all face being sacked or moved in April? How would that protect the NHS?

Maggie Throup: As my hon. Friend said, to date over 93% of NHS staff have had their first jab. I want to put out a plea. We already have vaccination as a condition of deployment in the care sector and we did not see the cliff edge that so many people predicted. In terms of my own personal circumstances, my father was in a care home for over seven years and his carers became his family. We always do the best for our family and want to make sure that they are protected in the same way that we are protected, and that carries through to NHS staff as well, and to those in other Care Quality Commission-regulated organisations. It is about patient safety: at the end of the day, we are looking to make sure that every patient is kept safe.

Sammy Wilson: I must say that I am amazed at the Minister’s complacency about the potential loss of staff as a result of the vaccine mandate. The care sector has lost 54,000 people who refused to take the vaccine, with the result that hospital beds are blocked, care packages are not being given and care homes are under pressure. The social care sector is an indication that we cannot force people to take the vaccine, and the Minister’s own assessment is that up to 88,000 staff could resist taking it. In the past week, 40,000 people in the NHS have been off work because they had to isolate, and we have seen the chaos that has caused. How does she intend to deal with the chaos of 88,000 staff not being available because of the vaccine mandate?

Maggie Throup: I do not recognise the data given by the right hon. Gentleman. We have already invested £465 million in a recruitment and retention programme for care home staff. It is important to recognise that caring is a worthwhile career. The carers I have met are really dedicated and get a lot from it. I come back to the fact that it is important to keep the most vulnerable in our society safe, whether they are care home residents or patients who are acutely ill in hospital.

Mark Harper: My sources in the NHS tell me that last week they received either from the Department or from NHS England instructions effectively on how to go about firing people from the NHS in April if they have not been vaccinated. That caused them considerable concern. The Government’s own analysis, prepared by the Minister’s own Department, is not of the position now; it is of the expectation of where we will be in April. Analysis from her own Department, signed off by her, thinks that 73,000 NHS staff and 38,000 domiciliary care workers will leave.
I want people to be vaccinated, but we know that the protection against infection wanes quite quickly from 10 weeks onwards, which means that we are not protecting others. I want people to be vaccinated, but I—and public health professionals—think that the best way is to persuade them, not threaten them with the sack. If people have not had their first jab by 3 February they will be unable to be fully vaccinated by April, so may I urge her, even at this stage, to come back to the House and reflect on whether threatening people with the sack if they do not get vaccinated is the right policy?

Maggie Throup: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that persuasion is the right way to go. That is why the uptake went up tremendously among care home staff and since we implemented the policy for the NHS the uptake among NHS staff has increased tremendously as well, which is really encouraging. We want it to be a positive choice, and we want people to understand that they are protecting not just themselves and their families but the patients they care for, ensuring that they are safe. Those one-on-one conversations are ongoing to ensure that people understand that, from the perspective of patient safety, this is the right choice to make.

Catherine McKinnell: With rates of infection high among teenagers, many are simply unable to get double vaccinated yet as they were infected in the period when they would have been eligible and had to wait 12 weeks to get the jab. Unfortunately for families hoping to travel in half term, they cannot access a covid recovery certificate through the NHS app or through 119, despite contracting covid being the reason that they are not double vaccinated. Families are facing the prospect of cancelling their travel plans for half term, which will have an impact not only on our constituents but on the travel industry. I know that the Department is considering a solution, but will the Minister give some clarity that that will be achieved before half term, to give people the confidence to make travel plans?

Maggie Throup: The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and it is not the first time the issue has been raised with me. We had that situation in the run-up to Christmas, and we are obviously now in the run-up to half term and Easter as well. I assure her that measures are being considered to see how to resolve the situation.

Mark Jenkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for her efforts to save us from vaccine-only passports, leaving the option for testing on the table, given what we know about the impact of vaccination on transmission and that fact that with compulsory vaccination the Government’s central assumption is the loss of more than 100,000 healthcare workers. She has set out that patient safety is paramount to her. Does she therefore share my concern that we risk lulling healthcare workers and patients into a false sense of security? Is it not the case that daily healthcare worker testing is a much safer option to rely on for the protection of patients?

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend makes a good point about daily testing, which is being carried out with certain cohorts of the workforce. The UKHSA continues to monitor the best way to ensure that the workforce, whether in the NHS or other parts of industry, protect one another as they go about their work tasks.

Chris Bryant: Having turned 60 yesterday—[Interruption.] It is very difficult to believe, isn’t it, Mr Speaker, but you are not saying I am misleading the House, obviously. Having turned 60 yesterday, I feel I ought to ask a question about the elderly. Quite a lot of people in the elderly group who have had their booster vaccines will have had them in September and October of last year. I had mine at the beginning of November. What will our policy be from now, because, as the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) pointed out, the immunity that comes from the booster runs out somewhat after 10 weeks?

Maggie Throup: I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday for yesterday. He does not look a year older than 59—just one day older. He makes a good point. The JCVI, which provides advice for Ministers, has considered that question. Towards the end of last week, it felt that a fourth dose or a second booster was not appropriate at this time and that it was important to focus on first boosters and people coming forward for their first and second doses. But I reiterate that the JCVI continues to keep the question under constant review and, should the situation change, it will provide that advice.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am going to hand over to my colleague in the Chair, but before I do so, to help the Minister I remind Members that we still have some nurses who can give injections at a pop-up in the House of Commons.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician working in the NHS and as a volunteer vaccinator. I am very proud to be part of the vaccination programme that has undoubtedly saved so very many lives.
I want to focus on children. I have worked in hospital over the past month and have been looking after children who have had positive tests. That is not unexpected because the virus is high in the population and of course we test everybody. However, I have not been looking after children who were admitted because of covid. In September, we heard that the decision on whether to offer children vaccines was finely balanced. Indeed, the JCVI referred that decision to the chief medical officers, who finally decided, on the basis of educational disruption, to offer children vaccines. Given that omicron is less harmful than the variants we were considering at the time, has the Minister asked the JCVI and the CMOs to consider whether these vaccines are still, on balance, better for children than not—except, perhaps, in the context of travel?

Maggie Throup: I thank my hon. Friend for her role in vaccinating probably thousands of people by now. Everybody has played their part, using their skills and their time to roll out the vaccination programme in such an amazing way. I assure my hon. Friend, who obviously has an awful lot of expertise and knowledge, that JCVI continually looks at the data. We hear announcements from the JCVI and think they are just about what it has considered on that particular day, but I assure the House that it continually looks at the data to make sure that we move forward in the right manner.

Anum Qaisar: As vaccination uptake increases, conspiracy theory-inspired groups have hardened their language and threats against  those involved in vaccination delivery have also increased. Some groups—I will not name them, because what they do is so despicable—are attempting to disrupt vaccinations, and even to attack testing facilities. The threat posed by conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer groups is real and cannot be ignored. What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of how to counter those groups and safeguard the vaccine roll-out?

Maggie Throup: Misinformation costs lives. It is totally inappropriate, and there is no place for it in our society. As the hon. Lady rightly highlights, testing centres have also been attacked, which I am sure is under police investigation. I reassure her that we have a unit that considers such issues all the time, and numerous online presences are taken down on a regular basis. As she will imagine, various police investigations are under way.

Andrew Murrison: When the facts change, we are entitled to change our minds, and since we passed the regulated activity regulations in December we have had further evidence to suggest that the transmissibility of covid declines after 10 or 12 weeks, as has been mentioned. In light of that, has the Minister gone back to challenge the JCVI on its advice about whether we should compulsorily vaccinate health workers, particularly given that it now appears that the risk they pose to patients declines after a very short period, and especially given that we have the alternative of regular lateral flow testing, which will tell, more or less in real time, whether healthcare professionals pose a threat to their patients?

Maggie Throup: It is important to go back to some of the stats I set out earlier. Those who are unvaccinated are eight times more likely to be hospitalised, and more than 60% of people in intensive care units are unvaccinated. If we can stop people getting the virus in the first place, it will not be transmitted and people will not catch the disease and be hospitalised. It is important to note that it was the will of the House to introduce that policy in December. As I have said repeatedly, the JCVI keeps all the data under constant review, which obviously has an impact on Government policy.

Rachael Maskell: I wish to follow the question raised by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), because the reality is that the facts have changed, and depleting efficacy, as well as transmissibility, is presenting a challenge for the Government and their longer term management of covid. Rather than forcing NHS staff to have their first vaccine by 3 February, which will present a massive risk to the NHS—the Government’s own assessment is that between 64,000 and 115,000 NHS and healthcare staff will be sacked—will the Government go back and review the issue, and ask the JCVI what the best strategy is for managing the pandemic from this point forward?

Maggie Throup: We have our plans in place. We have our vaccination programme, our testing, and our antivirals. Part of the purpose of the vaccination programme is to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected. As I said earlier, having the vaccine as a condition of employment is about patient safety and ensuring that people who are in hospital or care homes are protected from this deadly virus.

Bob Blackman: I have been a big advocate of the vaccination programme, and I got my jabs as soon as I could. Will my hon. Friend address a key issue of concern? The time gap between the different vaccines has been adjusted at various times and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned, those who are extremely clinically vulnerable had their booster a long time ago and its effectiveness is waning. We know that Israel is already administering a fourth dose to the extremely clinically vulnerable. Will the Minister take that point to the JCVI, so that it can look specifically at the extremely clinically vulnerable and see whether they need a fourth dose?

Maggie Throup: Those who are clinically extremely vulnerable or immunosuppressed have already been offered a booster, so they have already received four doses. As I said earlier, at the end of last week the JCVI determined that at this stage it was not appropriate for others to have a booster or a fourth dose.

Jim Shannon: The Titanic Exhibition Centre, which is the largest vaccination centre in Northern Ireland, is to close on Sunday 16 January. Has the Minister made an assessment, in her Department, of the impact that the closure of mass vaccination centres will have on the booster process throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Maggie Throup: As I understand it, the location of vaccination sites in the devolved nations is the responsibility of those nations. I can only speak for England in that regard, so the hon. Gentleman may wish to take the matter up with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland.

Stephen Metcalfe: May I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to my daughter, and to all her colleagues across the NHS who have worked on the frontline throughout the pandemic, caring for those who have sadly needed hospital treatment?
I have been very supportive of the Government’s approach to the pandemic and their actions, but I tend to agree that as the facts change, we should change our approach. What we have learnt about omicron is that the rationale behind mandatory vaccination has now shifted from protecting others to protecting oneself. Should we not revisit that, given the figures that the Minister has been quoting about the vaccination status of those in hospital and in intensive care units?

Maggie Throup: When we protect ourselves by having a vaccination, we protect others. My hon. Friend mentioned omicron, but we have seen other variants before, and we will no doubt see more in the future.

Munira Wilson: Before Christmas, the JCVI issued the welcome guidance that five to 11-year-olds who are either clinically vulnerable or living with someone who is immunosuppressed should be vaccinated against coronavirus, but since then we have heard very little. Can the Minister tell me when the roll-out to five to 11-year-olds will start, whether it will take place in schools or in vaccination centres, and how those who are immunocompromised will be identified—this is very important to those who are living with someone in that position—given that their GP records will not show their condition? I declare a personal interest.

Maggie Throup: The fact that the hon. Lady has asked that question demonstrates that this is quite a complex matter. NHS England is looking into it, to work out the best way to roll out the vaccine to that particularly vulnerable group of five to 11-year-olds.

Neale Hanvey: I often pay tribute in this place to the leadership on vaccines of Dame Kate Bingham. Speaking about the cancellation of the Valneva contract in Livingston, Dame Kate described the decision as “short-sighted”, “problematic” and “inexplicable”. She also said that it
“set aside the need to build resilience”
and “capability” through the
“flexible state-of-the-art”
technology that Valneva offered. Moreover, it would help us to tackle vaccine hesitancy and our international responsibilities, owing to the lack of cold chain problems. Will the Government listen to the sage advice of Dame Kate, and reinstate the Valneva contract as a matter of urgency?

Maggie Throup: I, too, pay tribute to the work of Kate Bingham. Without her leadership, we would be in a worse position in regard to vaccines.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of Valneva in the past, and, as I have said in the past, I cannot comment on commercial decisions.

Nigel Mills: I join the Minister in thanking all those who rushed out the booster programme in December, but some of our constituents have been confused by the two booking systems, the one for the GP centres and the national booking system. Will she commit herself to trying to establish a single booking system by the time we get round to the autumn boosters, or whatever we are going to have, so that we can see full capacity in all the sites that patients can use in one location?

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I think what we have achieved in the last year is incredible, and we know that we can improve things such as booking services, which is one of the areas I am sure we will be looking at. My hon. Friend makes the point that sometimes people were not aware that slots were available through their GP and thought they had to go through the national booking service. These are lessons to be learned. We have achieved an awful lot in just over a year, and I am sure we will be looking into that as a matter of urgency.

Henry Smith: I congratulate the United Kingdom Government on one of the most successful and leading covid-19 vaccination programmes anywhere in the world. As we go forward, can I seek assurances that those who are immunocompromised and immunosuppressed, such as blood cancer patients, will have a real focus from the Department of Health?

Maggie Throup: I would like to reassure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. I have met a number of the charities concerned in this area, and I will continue to have meetings with those who represent the patients to hear their views.

Danny Kruger: The House was asked before Christmas to vote for the mandatory vaccination of health workers on the basis of the argument that it would stop transmission. We now know that this is almost certainly not the case. I think we are almost at the end of this session, and it would be tremendous to hear a commitment from the Minister that she will formally request the JCVI to review the evidence behind this policy. The only argument she is giving for it is that it will help protect health workers, but that has to be a decision that they take for themselves. Rather than sacking compulsorily what may be over 100,000 health and social care workers, surely before the deadline is upon us we should reconsider this policy.

Maggie Throup: It is quite clear that the vaccine does reduce transmission. It is a matter of protecting the individual, but in these settings there are also some very vulnerable people who can ill afford to get more seriously ill. It is only right that we look at every aspect of this. It is not just about the omicron variant; it is about other variants in the future.

Andrew Lewer: We have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and others the expression attributed to John Maynard Keynes, but actually by Paul Samuelson:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Decisions about recommending vaccinations for 12 to 15-year-olds were regarded as very finely balanced in any case with delta as the predominant variant. Now we have omicron, that so-called fine balance, with all the complications of children’s benefit versus societal benefit and the small but real risk of myocarditis, has clearly altered. Will my hon. Friend ensure that she reflects on that very wise quotation in this instance?

Maggie Throup: I refer back to the fact that the MHRA confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective in 12 to 17-year-olds, and that followed the rigorous review of the safety, quality and effectiveness of the vaccines in this age group. Obviously, the JCVI then made that recommendation, and the CMO has backed it up. It was based on those experts that this decision was made.

Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis

Clive Lewis: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

Vicky Ford: Afghanistan is facing a serious and worsening humanitarian crisis. It is affecting well over half the population, with 23 million people facing acute food insecurity. This is now the world’s most severe food security crisis. The UN has this week requested nearly $4.5 billion for 2022—the largest humanitarian appeal on record, reflecting the magnitude of the humanitarian challenge ahead.
The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to address the situation, working with the UN Security Council, the G20, the G7 and countries in the region. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have all been working extensively with world leaders. In August, the Prime Minister announced that the UK would double its assistance for Afghanistan to £286 million this financial year, and we have now disbursed over £145 million. That will support over 3.4 million people in Afghanistan and the region, providing emergency food, healthcare, shelter, water and protection. We are working at pace to allocate the remaining funding in response to the developing crisis and the new UN appeal. Further details were in the ministerial statement on 15 December. I thank the British people for donating £28 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal in December, of which £10 million was doubled by UK aid match funding. That has helped to provide lifesaving support.
We were particularly concerned about the impact of the situation on women, girls and other marginalised groups. Last month I, alongside the Minister of State with responsibility for south Asia, Lord Ahmad, met organisations representing women, LGBT+ and religious minorities to discuss support for their needs. In allocating UK aid, we want to ensure that women, girls and other marginalised groups have equal, safe and dignified access to assistance and services. We have pressed the Taliban to respect humanitarian principles.
Our partners report that aid is getting through. We continue to monitor the situation very carefully, especially in the winter months. Aid workers face challenges getting money into Afghanistan due to the banking system. We are working closely with multilateral organisations, banks and non-governmental organisations to address those challenges. We welcome the decision by the World Bank board in November to transfer £280 million to support the humanitarian response, but it is vital—it is vital—that the World Bank produces options to allocate the $1.2 billion remaining in the fund. It is important that donors across the world step up to the challenge, including by responding to the UN’s call for additional funding.

Clive Lewis: Afghanistan, as has been heard, is facing an escalating and multi-faceted humanitarian crisis. In response, the United Nations launched its largest ever single country appeal, in part because the crisis in Afghanistan embodies a new breed of 21st century  international crisis, where the hazards of war collide with the hazards of climate change and a global viral outbreak. This has created a nightmarish feedback loop that punishes some of the world’s most vulnerable and destroys their country’s ability to cope. So far, the UK’s response has been woeful. It took five months for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme to be put into place, while our aid commitment to Afghanistan in 2021 was lower than what was delivered in 2019.
A heavy dose of realpolitik is now needed to address the immediate crisis before us. Let me ask the Minister for more detail on how the Government will square the circle of dealing with the Taliban and playing their part in supporting Afghanistan and humanitarian aid. Let me also ask the Minister what plans her Department has to deal with the multi-faceted nature of this crisis. The $4.4 billion the UN has appealed for is only a stop-gap. It will not stop escalation. But if we do not meet the appeal, it will be £10 billion next year and a lot more suffering.
After two decades of military intervention costing at least £27.7 billion, the UK must now step up to the plate to meet the $4.4 billion requested. The UN cannot deliver at the scale and speed needed by working alone, so will global Britain now show global leadership? Will the Secretary of State agree to help those in urgent need, including 1 million children who face starvation, by convening a conference, as former Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling for, with the United States, the EU and other willing partners to agree new financing to fully cover our obligation to this appeal?

Vicky Ford: As I said in my opening remarks, the situation is enormously serious. Indeed, it is now the world’s most severe food security crisis.
On the issues relating to supporting Afghan resettlement, of course everybody in this Chamber has had huge praise for all those who worked during Operation Pitting. It was incredibly challenging, but those on the ground, including the ambassador and his team from the Foreign Office, did amazing work. Since the evacuation, as the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) made clear last week, we have helped a further 1,500 to enter the UK, including female judges, human rights defenders and LGBT Afghans. At that stage, of course, she announced the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.
On getting more aid into the country, as I said in my opening remarks it is incredibly important that the world steps up to this challenge, especially towards meeting the UN appeal.The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers, including the Minister for the region, are working closely with world leaders, including in the US, the EU and the UN. Indeed, my colleague the responsible Minister is in regular co-ordination with all key international agency leads at the UN, including those for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the International Rescue Committee. We will make more announcements in response to the UN appeal in the coming weeks, but I restate what I said in my statement about the importance of the World Bank giving options to unlock the $1.2 billion that remains in the fund.

Thomas Tugendhat: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments about co-operation with international organisations, particularly the Nobel prize-winning World Food Programme, which has done so much important work not just in the region, but around the world. What work is she doing with others in the region, including countries such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and even Iran, to get support together for those who are in the most vulnerable position that we have seen in generations?
This is not just about the misery that we are seeing in Afghanistan, where some people are even forced to sell their children. It is about a humanitarian response from the most generous country—from the United Kingdom—to people who are in desperate need and whom I hope will be supported not only to stay in their own homes and have a future, but to turn to opportunities that will build an economy and build the future that has been so cruelly torn away from them in recent months.

Vicky Ford: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for his close interest in the subject and for mentioning the plight of children. We are deeply concerned by the forced marriage practised in Afghanistan, particularly for children, and we are very aware of the risk that more women and young girls could be sold into marriage as the humanitarian situation worsens.
My hon. Friend asks what we are doing about international engagement. Since August, our international engagement has been focused on securing a co-ordinated humanitarian response, agreeing a co-ordinated approach to the Taliban-led regime and, as far as possible, preventing economic collapse. We have played an active role in seeking to build a shared new international approach since the Taliban takeover, working with the UN Security Council, the G20 and the G7 and engaging with other countries in the region. For example, the Foreign Secretary recently travelled to India, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where she discussed Afghanistan and the importance of international co-ordination.
In October, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—the Minister of State for south and central Asia, the United Nations and the Commonwealth—attended the annual open debate on women, peace and security at the UN Security Council, where he made it clear that the rights of Afghan women need to be front and centre. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and many other Ministers discussed Afghanistan with world leaders in the margins of COP26. We all urge the need to address the acute humanitarian situation. We are continuing to work very closely with countries across the world and across the region.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

David Lammy: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing this hugely important urgent question.
As we stand here today, the situation in Afghanistan is more perilous than ever. Since the withdrawal of British and NATO forces in August, the country has entered a catastrophic free fall. It is by no means an exaggeration to say that the country is hurtling towards a humanitarian cliff edge that places millions of Afghans, including millions of children, at risk of starvation.
The facts are truly horrendous. More than 90% of the country’s health clinics and hospitals are without the funds that they need to stay open. Basic public services have been decimated, with teachers, doctors and nurses going unpaid. When you listen to those facts, Madam Deputy Speaker, you could be mistaken in believing that the situation in Afghanistan can get no worse and become no more perilous. Tragically, that would be misguided. With 97% of the Afghan population soon to be living below the poverty line, almost 23 million people are teetering on the edge of starvation. A further deterioration will have dire consequences for the people of Afghanistan and impact not the just the region but the UK, with more desperate people seeking sanctuary outside the country. We must ensure that our sanctions regime and our understandable desire to place pressure on the Taliban regime does not become an impediment to supporting the very people we seek to help. Whether we like it or not, some form of engagement is necessary if we are to support the people of Afghanistan.
After the chaos of withdrawal, after Brits and Afghans were left behind, after slashing aid to Afghanistan just last year only to U-turn and restore it, and after the damning whistleblower revelations, the Minister will understand why there is a chronic lack of confidence in the House about the ministerial leadership of her Department. Will the UK convene an urgent pledging conference, as suggested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to try to pressure the international community to meet the enormous need? What dialogue have the UK and other allies had with the Taliban—perhaps via the UN—over humanitarian access? Has the Minister met non-governmental organisations and civil society to discuss how the Government can better support their efforts?
The need could not be more urgent; nor could the situation be more grave. As a proud outward-looking country, we cannot turn our backs on ordinary Afghanis now. It is our moral imperative to act—and act swiftly—to help Afghanistan in its time of greatest need.

Vicky Ford: We are very concerned about the rapid economic contraction and the impact that that is having on the people of Afghanistan, especially as the cost of essential products is rising and people are struggling to withdraw funds. The World Bank predicts a 30% fall in GDP. It is a serious issue, and preventing humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan is in everyone’s interests. That is why we have already disbursed more than £145 million of humanitarian support. The details on where all that support has gone were in the December written ministerial statement. Further money has been pledged from the UK, and Ministers will make further announcements in response to the UN appeal in the coming weeks.
I believe that working with the UN through that appeal—the largest appeal that it has ever launched—is critical. Our funding is going through the Afghanistan humanitarian fund, the World Food Programme, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and other UN organisations, all of which are trusted partners. As regards sanctions, the UK led the way on the sanctions carve-out to ensure that delivery of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan could continue. At present, we are hearing on the ground that aid is getting through. However, it is of course a particularly difficult time, because we know that winter is coming.

Nusrat Ghani: I would like first to raise the point that when children and young babies are sold into sexual and domestic slavery, we must not refer to that as marriage. I ask the Minister not to do so going forward.
What a shameful legacy we leave behind in Afghanistan, with millions on the brink of starvation. What conversations has the Minister had with Pakistan, which I think is already taking the most Afghan refugees? Will she ensure that we are working with people to create an understanding of what it is to live in a liberal democracy and not fuelling radicalisation in any way?
The Minister knows about the amount of work that I have done with many colleagues across the House to try to rescue Afghan women and girls, and Afghan female MPs in particular, but the Afghan resettlement programme is not working for the people whom I am trying to help. What assurances can she give that we will enable more women who could be killed by the Taliban to survive so that one day they can go back home and even help with the aid programme?

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about children. She asks what we are doing with other countries in the region, including Pakistan. My colleague the Minister for south and central Asia, Lord Ahmad, is in regular contact with other neighbouring countries, and £30 million was allocated to help other countries in the region respond to the impact of the crisis on themselves.
We are committed to ensuring that at least half the aid reaches women and girls. Just before Christmas I met NGOs and organisations representing both women’s and girls’ organisation and LGBT organisations, and their feedback from the ground was incredibly helpful. The Minister for Afghan Resettlement made a statement on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme last week, and she mentioned that three cohorts of LGBT people have already come to the UK under the scheme. We will continue to prioritise those women who are most at risk, but we need to recognise that, although we are doing a huge amount to help resettle people in this country, we need to support people on the ground, which is why we are working with world-leading organisations to focus always on the most vulnerable, including women and girls.

Chris Law: Even before our chaotic withdrawal, it was known that the people of Afghanistan faced a humanitarian crisis this winter. In September the UN estimated that only 5% of Afghans had enough food to eat each day, so the UK Government cannot say that this famine has caught them by surprise. With 1 million children at risk of severe malnourishment and 23 million people threatened with starvation, less than 25% of UK aid money pledged to Afghanistan in 2021 had been disbursed by the beginning of December, which is shocking.
With the UN launching an appeal for nearly £5 billion in aid for Afghanistan, will the UK Government ensure that all the funds pledged urgently reach those in need? Can the Minister confirm what new money the UK will donate, above and beyond the previous announcements? Will the UK Government finally recognise that their ideological cuts to aid have cost countless lives not only in Afghanistan but across the world, and will they reverse that decision?

Vicky Ford: To correct the record, because it is important that we make accurate statements, between April and December 2021 we disbursed over £145 million-worth of aid, £135 million of which went into lifesaving humanitarian support inside Afghanistan, including for food, health, nutrition, shelter, water, sanitation and landmine action. Another £10 million went into neighbouring countries to support new and existing refugees.
We are working quickly to develop plans to allocate the remainder of the £286 million to ensure that it reaches the people who need it most. We will be making further announcements in due course. We made a written ministerial statement just before Christmas, and we are working with NGO partners, including the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, the World Food Programme, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and other UN organisations. Those partners on the ground are distributing the aid that is needed. The important thing is that the world needs to step up to this challenge. This is the biggest challenge, which is why the UN has launched this appeal today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: I want to try to get everybody in. It is therefore important that questions are short and to the point. We do not want a list of several questions; we want one question so that the Minister is able to reply accordingly.

Mark Logan: In my new role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Afghanistan, I look forward to co-hosting a meeting with the Minister for Afghan Resettlement at 2.30 pm alongside the all-party parliamentary group on women, peace and security.
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on the UN appeal for $4.4 billion, since the end of Operation Pitting in August 2021 what commitments and, indeed, how much aid have this Government already provided to Afghanistan?

Vicky Ford: Between April and December 2021 we disbursed over £145 million, including £135 million of lifesaving humanitarian support inside the country and £10 million to neighbouring countries.

Sarah Champion: The Taliban takeover caused an economic meltdown in Afghanistan. Banks ran short, millions lost work or went unpaid and the currency nosedived. Perversely, markets still have food, but the problem is there is no access to cash. People are starving, babies are malnourished, women are not allowed to work to feed their families and there is no money to heat homes. My Committee is clear: the Government must urgently fund emergency organisations such as the World Food Programme. Of the £286 million pledged, so far only £81 million has been disbursed. Can the Minister also update us on what steps are being taken to unfreeze assets and ensure that financial transactions linked to humanitarian aid are excluded from international sanctions, specifically including paying local aid workers? Then, can the Minister please monitor what the Taliban does with that?

Vicky Ford: There were a number of different questions. Just to be clear, £135 million of our aid has gone, to the end of December. No funds are going directly to the Taliban; they are going through the other organisations and trusted partners that I mentioned. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the issues to do with getting money into Afghanistan and the banking system. We are working really closely with multilateral organisations, banks and NGOs to address these challenges. On the funding available to meet this crisis, it is really important that it is all unlocked, which is why I refer again to the importance of unlocking that $1.2 billion within the World Bank. Obviously we are a major shareholder in the World Bank. I spoke to our team at the World Bank just before Christmas. It is really important that we unlock that. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to work with her colleagues in other Parliaments across the world who share her passion to encourage other members of the World Bank to focus on looking at the options for unlocking that vital cash.

Harriett Baldwin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this incredibly important urgent question. We have heard rightly from the Minister about the urgency of the humanitarian crisis, but there is also a learning crisis in Afghanistan, and all the progress made in getting children into education has gone back to the beginning. What can the Minister tell us about the Government’s efforts to ensure that teachers are getting paid, to sustain education for the generations to come in Afghanistan?

Vicky Ford: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of girls’ education. We are absolutely committed to girls’ education across the world and we absolutely believe that all girls in Afghanistan have the right to education at all stages—both secondary and primary. We continue to provide emergency education funding through the UN system, and multilateral funding, including for Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education. It is currently holiday time in Afghanistan. The schools are due to reopen in March. One of the key partners that we work with on providing education in Afghanistan is Save the Children, and I have a long-scheduled meeting with the head of Save the Children immediately after these exchanges this afternoon. I am more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend immediately after that meeting.

Dan Jarvis: The Taliban are a wicked regime responsible for murdering some of my friends. None of us wanted them in power, but Afghans have no choice. While humanitarian aid is desperately needed, it will never be enough. Millions are starving, the state has collapsed and the economy is in freefall. Further to the question just a moment ago from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), how does the Minister plan to unfreeze state assets, lift sanctions and get the Afghan economy turning again?

Vicky Ford: I completely agree with the hon. Member’s sentiment. None of us wanted to be in this situation; it is absolutely dire. The impact on the people of Afghanistan and especially those in vulnerable groups, women and children is heartbreaking. We will continue to focus on  getting the aid and getting the international response. It is very important that the UN has launched that appeal today and we will continue to work with it on all sides.
We were very clear in our leadership in making sure that sanctions should not end up blocking that humanitarian aid, and I know that the Minister responsible will continue to ensure he is doing all he can with partners across the world and British leadership to ensure that that aid gets through. That is the immediate issue this winter, as well as continuing to press the Taliban to ensure that they keep their promises that girls can go back to school and that marginal groups will be respected.

Flick Drummond: I am looking forward to co-chairing the meeting on Afghanistan in about 15 minutes alongside the chair of the Afghanistan all-party parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan). The tragedy is that Afghanistan produces much of its food, and the markets are well stocked; however, the collapse of the Afghan economy means that people are unable to afford food, particularly during the winter months, before they can go to their farms in the countryside. My question is very similar to the previous two. What can we further do to help the Afghan economy to recover?

Vicky Ford: There are multiple causes of the crisis; my hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. I know that she has travelled to the country in happier times. We are working really closely with the World Bank and the UN to find solutions that will enable international non-governmental organisations to access currency in Afghanistan, which is absolutely crucial. We will make further announcements in response to the UN appeal in the coming weeks.

Layla Moran: The situation is absolutely desperate and every penny counts, but how those pennies are spent matters. Yesterday, I spoke to an NGO working out there on the ground that said that, although of course it welcomes any money that it gets, the UK Government’s rigid, bureaucratic approach means that the money has been delayed. The timelines to spend it have shrunk, so it is not spent as effectively as possible. The NGO has noticed that those inefficiencies have got much worse since the merger between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, just as the Liberal Democrats and others warned at the time. What we need now in responding to this dreadful crisis is not just more money but flexibility and timeliness in how it gets to our partners on the ground. Will the Minister commit to speaking to NGOs having those problems, and will the money be paid on time?

Vicky Ford: My colleague, the Minister for the region, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, is in regular connect with NGOs. We have already disbursed over £145 million, which is going into life-saving humanitarian support. It is going to key partners, not directly to the Taliban, which is important. It is also really important that we help to unlock the funding that is currently sitting in the World Bank. That is a key pot of money that needs flexibility to get to people on the ground. The hon. Member is right to raise the need to unlock bureaucracy; I would point to that as a particular concern in that  area. We are working very quickly on plans to reallocate the remainder of the £286 million, but we want to ensure that it reaches the people who need it the most. We are also ensuring that no funds are going directly to the Taliban.

Bob Blackman: At the start of the withdrawal, I had 656 constituents with families trapped in Afghanistan. Very sadly, the vast majority are still trapped in Afghanistan and want to leave. Therefore, the Afghan resettlement scheme has come as a big disappointment to all those families. What action will my hon. Friend take to enable those families who want to leave Afghanistan, and who assisted the UK and the USA when we were there, to leave and fulfil what they want to do, which is to live a proper and decent life?

Vicky Ford: The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme was announced by the Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), just last week. She pointed out that it is coming into place this year. We have announced an aim to settle 5,000 people in the first year of the ACRS. She also announced that, in the light of the emerging situation and the success of evacuation efforts, we will exceed that aim. The first to be resettled included women’s rights activists, journalists and prosecutors, as well as Afghan families of British nationals.
I would encourage my hon. Friend to work with the Minister for Afghan Resettlement on any individual cases that he has, but I would also say, as this question points out, that we need to support those in the country; it is not going to be possible to resettle every single case.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry—this is terrible. Every single element of this was not only predictable but predicted repeatedly for 18 months and longer. Operation Pitting was a disaster. We did not actually prioritise the right people, or we have no confidence that we prioritised the right people. We have abandoned lots of people, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said. All of us have constituency connections with people who are stuck in Afghanistan, and the Minister has no means of enabling them to get to safety. We have abandoned them to a future where there is not enough food, there is not enough money to pay the bills, there is no electricity and most of the hospitals are not working properly. We have a complete disaster, and part of the blame for that lies at the Government’s door.

Vicky Ford: During Operation Pitting, we worked at great speed. Our armed forces on the ground worked at great speed and in great danger to evacuate around 15,000 people to the UK. That was the second largest number evacuated by any country, behind only the United States. We are supporting people in Afghanistan.

Karen Buck: With a large Afghan community as well, I am hearing every day stories of relatives who are murdered, who are disappeared, who are hungry and who are suffering from medical emergencies. That includes the husband and two children of a constituent of mine who are trapped in Afghanistan. It is simply not the case that the relatives of British nationals in this country are getting the assistance that they were promised and need.  Please will the Minister take the desperate pleas of ourselves and our Afghan communities back and make sure they are heard in Government so that we can assist those people who may have a claim to come here?

Vicky Ford: I agree that this is a really serious and difficult situation, especially for the people in Afghanistan. That is why we have been focusing on working with others on getting humanitarian aid in. Since the end of Operation Pitting, the UK has supported nearly 1,300 people to leave Afghanistan, including 700 British nationals and eligible dependants. We will continue to work to ensure that those still in Afghanistan are able to depart the country safely if they are eligible. I would encourage the hon. Lady to continue to work with the Minister for Afghan Resettlement on individual cases.

Alison McGovern: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for bringing forward this urgent question. Children facing starvation in a manner that was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, entirely predictable and predicted deserve the attention of the most powerful people in the world. So can I ask the Minister a direct question that has already been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) but that has not been answered? Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has asked our Foreign Secretary to bring together an Afghan rescue conference so that those powerful people can do something about this issue. Is the answer yes or is the answer no?

Vicky Ford: Our Foreign Secretary, our Prime Minister, the Minister responsible and all members of the UK Government have been working with our international partners and showing international leadership on this issue. It is right that we work with the UN on it. The UN has today announced its appeal—the biggest appeal ever—and we will be making further announcements on that appeal and how we continue to work with the UN, which is the right organisation to be working with, in the coming weeks.

Seema Malhotra: Frankly, what we are hearing today just is not good enough. We know that the situation is utterly dire in Afghanistan. Could I request that the Minister takes away what she has heard from both sides of the Chamber today and comes back to the House as soon as possible in the next few days with a statement about how the UK is stepping up its leadership on the humanitarian crisis and about what it will do to expedite the evacuation and resettlement of at-risk Afghans who are relatives of our constituents—I have 400 cases outstanding—to make sure there is a strong, clear message about how they could be evacuated for their safety? They are still at risk and they are now falling prey to the worsening humanitarian situation.

Vicky Ford: This is the most serious food crisis in the world. This is not the time for party politics. The UK has been leading the international efforts on this issue. The UN has just launched the world’s biggest-ever appeal. We have been working, with UK leadership  from the beginning, on this incredibly difficult situation with our partners at the UN and at the World Bank. We are leading the pressure to unlock the money from the World Bank, which is key to this issue.
I encourage the hon. Lady to please get behind the UN and behind the UK Government’s efforts to bring the world together to help the people of Afghanistan, because that is vital for the people of Afghanistan right now.

Clive Lewis: Do your job.

Vicky Ford: There is no one working harder to get on with the job and to support people around the world than this Government. I find Members accusing us of not getting on with the job from a sedentary position really offensive to the people of Afghanistan.
A written ministerial statement updated the House just before Christmas. I have said from this Dispatch Box that the UK Government will come back with further statements in response to the UN appeal in the coming weeks. That is the right thing to do and it is right that we are working with the UN, other international partners and key NGOs. In terms of doing my job, as soon as I leave the Chamber I am going to meet Save the Children, one of our key partners on this issue, because it is really important that we continue to work with our key partners.

Claire Hanna: The unfolding crisis in Afghanistan is nightmarish in its scale and complexity and the Social Democratic and Labour party entirely supports the pathway set out today for an international conference to intensify and galvanise global support.
We have heard about the efforts on the ground and know that only a tiny proportion of those affected will be able and seeking to leave Afghanistan, but the scheme is clearly inadequate. I am aware, from responses I have received, that the Northern Ireland Executive are ready and willing to accept a large number of refugees; will the Minister advise the House as to what discussions have been had with them? In the light of the comments from several Members, can she ensure that there will be a pathway to referral to the scheme from MPs’ offices?

Vicky Ford: I will certainly get back to the hon. Lady about a pathway to referral to the scheme from MPs’ offices. The Home Office leads on that, rather than me.
I say again that this is a really serious and worsening crisis. It is the largest humanitarian appeal ever made on record with the UN. We need to work with our partners at the UN and the World Bank to unlock funding for the humanitarian crisis and that is what the Government are doing. We will be getting on with that job.

Paul Blomfield: I have to say that the Minister’s response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) was unfortunate, because there is real cross-party concern on this issue. The Minister was right in her opening remarks to highlight the generosity of the British people, because they recognise our special responsibility to the Afghan people in the face of the unfolding catastrophe following our chaotic withdrawal. She has set out what the Government are doing, but  clearly it is not working. What further plans do the Government have to address the appalling situation in Afghanistan?

Vicky Ford: I think I have been very clear: we are working with the UN and other international partners and we want to unlock the World Bank funding that will make a considerable difference. We need to continue to work with trusted partners to make sure that the funding that we and others have pledged gets to those on the ground who need it most. We are also working with NGOs and other banks and, if it is possible, to tackle some of the issues in the payments system that are causing such complexity. We are working with our education partners and other NGOs and will make further announcements in response to the UN appeal in the coming weeks.

Rachael Maskell: When something is not working, we have to look at it again, and that is why an international conference is necessary, to bring greater leverage to the situation and to achieve the outcomes we all want. One group of people that the Minister has not referred to is the democratically elected Members of the Afghanistan Parliament, who are now spread around the world. They know their communities in the same way that we know our communities. Will the Minister open up a dialogue with the very people who know whole communities across Afghanistan, to ensure that they have a say on the future?

Vicky Ford: The hon. Lady makes a very good point about speaking to many of those who have represented Afghanistan and who are now situated across the world—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Vicky Ford: The situation is enormously difficult, and being heckled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) from a sedentary position is very hard. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia has a great deal of contact with experts on this issue—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Vicky Ford: About 15,000 people were brought to the UK. Many of them are still in hotels, but many more have moved into homes. We have the second largest resettlement scheme in the world, and it is really important that we continue to work with my hon. Friend the Minister for Afghan Resettlement on any individual issues that constituents may face.

Kate Green: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) was right to praise the Minister for acknowledging the generosity of the British public, but I warn her that the anger and disappointment felt by people in this country at the failures of the British Government threaten to undermine everything that she has said to the House this afternoon.
Faith and community groups in my constituency are anxious to continue supporting the humanitarian effort towards Afghanistan. What work are the Government  doing with faith and community leaders in this country to support their efforts and those of their members and communities?

Vicky Ford: I thank the hon. Member for again raising the issue of the generosity of the British people. They have been enormously generous, especially in response to the appeal just before Christmas, which was, of course, match funded with up to £10 million of additional funding from the UK Government. It is truly life-saving aid.
The hon. Member makes a very good point about outreach to faith and community leaders in the UK. I will certainly raise with my colleague Lord Ahmad what more we can do, especially in explaining to the people of the UK, who have such generous hearts, what we are doing in the country in this very difficult situation.

Emma Hardy: A constituent has been to see me a number of times, desperately worried, in tears, heartbroken and concerned about her sister, who worked in the special forces with the UK and NATO and is at risk. For obvious reasons, I will not name my constituent or her sister. I have raised the issue with the Ministry of Defence, which wrote back to me on 18 November and said that it was confirming her eligibility. My office has raised the issue with the Home Office as well. Will the Minister please look into this particular case? I am very happy to send her all of the details straight after this statement, because I am desperately worried that the situation is getting worse.

Vicky Ford: This is heart-wrenching. We all have cases involving families who have been separated and of constituents who have come here from Afghanistan and are very concerned about the impact this is having and the risk to their families in Afghanistan. I point again to the fact that the Minister for Afghan Resettlement announced a new scheme just last week. The hon. Lady should raise her case with the Minister responsible. If she would like to send it to me, I will forward it to her. It has to go through that scheme, which is one of the most generous in the world, with 5,000 people this year, but it cannot be every single person.

Anna McMorrin: The World Health Organisation predicts that 1 million Afghan children under five will die of starvation this winter alone; another 2.2 million will suffer acute malnutrition. The progress achieved by the people there over 20 years has been irreversibly wiped out as a result of this humanitarian disaster. Fears of misuse of donor funds and of validating the Taliban remain valid, but given the urgency of tackling the crisis, does the Minister agree that the UK Government must do more? If this is truly not a time for party politics, will she, as my colleagues requested, say yes to the international conference of 68 nations that Gordon Brown has suggested?

Vicky Ford: The hon. Lady is right to raise what the WHO has been saying. This is the most severe food crisis in the world. That is why the UN has launched its appeal, and it is right that when we are working and engaging with other countries, we engage with that appeal. I cannot make further announcements today,  but I have said that Ministers are expected to make other announcements in response to the UN appeal in coming weeks.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her answers. The United Nations revealed yesterday that it needs £5 billion in aid for Afghanistan to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. There have been 40 years of constant suffering. Viewing this morning, as everyone has, the pictures and stories on TV and other media showing young children and women in pain and starving to death was terribly upsetting—it is hard not to be upset by those pictures. How can the Minister ensure that the humanitarian aid gets to those who need it the most and need it right now?

Vicky Ford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his constant interest. As I said, we want to make absolutely sure that the aid gets to those who need it. That is why our funding is being channelled through the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, the World Food Programme and other UN organisations, and the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. They are the right organisations to work with to ensure that aid gets through. Aid is currently getting through, although obviously the winter is a concern.

Points of Order

Chris Law: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raised the issue of the supply of funding for the Afghanistan crisis being less than 25% by the end of November/beginning of December. Looking back on the record to a reply given by the Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America, he said the figure was £70 million, which is indeed less than 25%. I appreciate that the sum might have been increased during December, but it still falls 50% short of the funds allocated for 2021. Will you advise me and the Minister on how to set the record straight?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point of order, but as he knows, it is Ministers, not the Chair, who are responsible for their words in the Chamber. Those on the Government Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, will have heard what he said, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will seek to correct the record if a mistake has been made.

Sarah Champion: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituent, a survivor of child abuse, has worked with the National Crime Agency during recent prosecutions, but she has been waiting since July for a decision on a family permit application to the EU settlement scheme. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who is the Immigration Minister, on 2 November, but have not received a reply.
I have raised the matter on multiple occasions with UK Visas and Immigration, but again, replies have not been forthcoming. My constituent was told that a decision was made on 20 December, and UKVI confirmed that to me, but she has still not been told what the outcome is. It completely ruined Christmas and new year for her and her children. I have chased up the case repeatedly, but I cannot get that decision. This is torture for my constituent. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you provide guidance on what I can do, what mechanisms are available to me, to get that decision, so that this woman can have some peace in her life?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. I am obviously disappointed, as I am sure she is, to hear that her letter and representations have not received a response. I would hope that a response would now be forthcoming speedily, especially as there are Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench who I am sure will convey that back to the Home Office.
In terms of how the hon. Lady might pursue the matter further, she may wish to discuss the issue with Clerks at the Table Office, who can offer advice. I also know that if issues of delays with Ministers are raised with the Leader of the House at business questions, he agrees to take them back to Ministers, so that might be another route that she might wish to pursue through business questions.

Peter Kyle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have informed the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of my intention to raise this point of order. In July last year, he released a Command Paper on the troubles in Northern Ireland and the related legacy issues. In his statement to the House, he said that he would be
“introducing legislation by the end of the autumn”,—[Official Report, 14 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 390.]
but no legislation came forward. At the last oral questions, just before Christmas, I asked him where the legislation was and he replied:
“We have not had pauses”.—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 366.]
This week, a Government briefing to the PoliticsHome website about that legislation said that
“a government source told PoliticsHome that they needed more time to ‘get it right’ and that the legislation might not make it onto the statute books until late spring or early summer.”
That strikes me as a clear breach of the ministerial code, which is clear in its intent. Ministers should talk about legislation and how legislation will be handled in this place by talking to this place in an oral or written statement, preferably an oral one so that we can cross-examine it at the Dispatch Box.
Can you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you or Mr Speaker have been informed of any intentions for that legislation? If not, it is a discourtesy to Mr Speaker, to the House and certainly to all people in Northern Ireland, for whom anxiety has been provoked by talk of the legislation.

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He raises a number of issues. Decisions about when to make written or oral statements are obviously for the Government rather than the Speaker, but as he will know, Mr Speaker has repeatedly made it clear that substantial policy announcements should be made first to the House. I would expect the Government to observe that in relation to this important issue.
With regard to breaches of the ministerial code, if the hon. Gentleman wished to raise that, it would obviously be a matter for the Cabinet Office. I will ensure that Mr Speaker is aware of his point about possible changes to policy, but I hope that the Government Front-Bench team have heard that and will feed it back to the Northern Ireland Office.

Digitally Altered Body Images

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Luke Evans: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require advertisers, broadcasters and publishers to display a logo in cases where an image of a human body or body part has been digitally altered in its proportions; and for connected purposes.
To set the tone for this speech, I will describe an advert put out about a year ago by Dove called “Reverse Selfie”. It starts with a young girl looking at her phone. On that phone, there is a picture of her. She may be in her late teens or early 20s. It starts to scroll backwards. She sees the comments underneath the photo of “you look amazing” suddenly disappearing, with all the likes slowly drifting away. Suddenly, the filter changes and so does her hair colour. The size of her face, including her nose, changes. Blemishes on her skin suddenly reappear.
The process goes further. The girl puts the phone down and lies backwards and there behind her is a picture of her family that reappears on the wall—she has scrubbed it off—and a picture of her favourite teen band. Furthermore, the image shows make-up, including lipstick, coming off. Finally, what is left in front of us is a girl no older than 13 or 14. The advert finishes with a pertinent line: “The pressure of social media is hurting our girls’ self-esteem.” This is an all-too-common story happening up and down the UK to our daughters, our sons, our granddaughters and our grandsons. The advert is only a minute long but it encapsulates perfectly the problem facing our media-hungry society.
Don’t believe me? One in five adults feel shame about their body. In teenagers, it is one in three. The Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into body image found that concerns about the way we look start younger, last longer and affect more people than ever before, with 61% of adults and 66% of children feeling “negative” or “very negative” about their body image. NHS England data released over the summer showed that there were 2,682 admissions of children under the age of 17 with a primary diagnosis of eating disorders between April 2020 and March 2021—an increase of 34% on the previous year. This issue is here, stark and getting worse. I have seen it in my own practice as a GP before being in this House, and I fear the numbers will only increase from the 1.25 million people who have suffered with eating disorders and the 1 million people in the UK using steroids, many in pursuit of achieving an image that is simply unattainable no matter what they do. The problem is palpable, prolific and pervasive.
The growth of influencers’ collaborations and sponsored posts, particularly on social media, has added to the ever-growing list of tools advertisers have at their disposal, often featuring images that can be secretly edited. This, combined with the amount of time we spend endlessly scrolling through social media, has created a perfect storm for physical and mental health. Constantly seeing altered images warps our sense of reality and drives an aspiration that can never, ever be achieved. Even the social media companies know this, as the Facebook leaks have shown. We are setting up a generation to fail, and it is hurting us all.
It comes as no surprise that the Women and Equalities Committee has reported on body image, the Advertising Standards Authority has opened an inquiry and a call for evidence on the issue, and the Health and Social Care Committee will, in the coming weeks, open its inquiry into body image. The UK is waking up to the issue, as have other countries across the world, with legislation in place in Israel and France and currently being brought forward in Norway. Body image is an issue that is multi-faceted and covers multiple Government Departments, with no silver bullet. We all understand that it requires a layered response from the likes of the Education Department, together with the draft online safety Bill and the assessment of risk. All these are rightly being looked at.
My Bill is a simple stepping stone—a brick in the foundation to help tackle the problem. I am proposing a new law in Parliament that calls for commercial images featuring digitally altered bodies to be labelled with a logo where the body proportions are artificially doctored. To put it simply, if someone is being paid to post a picture on social media that they have edited, or advertisers, broadcasters or publishers are making money from an edited photograph, they should be honest and upfront about it. This is not about stopping people touching up their wedding photos or removing the red-eye on a post; it is targeted at those with significant, far-reaching influence and those with commercial intent.
This area is already regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority and there are some similar precedents already in place. We have the “P” for product placement on TV, disclaimers on political adverts, and “Not actual video game footage” notices on adverts for video games. In more recent times, the ASA has done a significant amount of legwork on what is commercial and who the rules apply to, and the use of #ad on posts. The ASA advises:
“In most cases, the use of #ad (or similar) is the clearest way of communicating the commercial nature of social media content. Alternatively, a platform’s own disclosure tools, such as Instagram’s Paid Partnership tool, can also help to distinguish advertising from other content…If an influencer fails to sufficiently disclose that a post is in fact marketing, then not only are they breaking the CAP Code, they—and the brand they’re working with—may well be breaking the law.”
My proposal is simply a translation of current practice into the digital world of body image.
Some detractors will wag their finger and say that this is the nanny state in action, but if anything it is the opposite. Those who put forward that position know full well that a perfect market needs perfect information, and this Bill is a step towards that. It does not ban changes; it simply empowers the individual to know that what they perceive is not reality, thus giving them information and, importantly, choice. However, the Bill  would provide backup for the Secretary of State, should the industry not take action itself. Others argue that the evidence is not clear. They argue that logos and labels do not work and that in some cases labelling can even worsen outcomes. I would simply argue that the evidence is relatively scant and thin, as most would concede, and that the precautionary principle applies here, given the scale of the problem.
Having my Bill in place will primarily prevent people and companies from feeling the need to doctor images in the first place. This is already evident from the many social influencers and companies that are shunning tools and filters because they see the negative connotations being perpetuated across society and see that brands are actively choosing to dissociate themselves from digital enhancement. But alas, many are still caught up in the arms race for the perfect selfie, which is why this Bill has a place.
In closing, I find myself in a very strange position. I actually do not want to see such a logo on an image, ever. Why? Because I hope that we can foster a society that aims for body positivity without physiques that are impossible without digital manipulation. Failing that, or until then, the Government must consider primary and precautionary measures to help to curb the dramatic rise in poor mental wellbeing, the mass individual self-loathing that we have across the UK and the serious mental health disorders such as anorexia and bulimia that are becoming florid. I believe that my Digitally Altered Body Images Bill is a small but fitting way to start this journey.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dr Luke Evans, Jeremy Hunt, Julian Knight, Neale Hanvey, Dr Lisa Cameron, Simon Jupp, Caroline Nokes, Jim Shannon, Wera Hobhouse, Dean Russell, John Cryer and Steve Brine present the Bill.
Dr Luke Evans accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February, and to be printed (Bill 227).

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the Order of 24 November 2021 (Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee of Session 2019-21, The impact of Coronavirus on businesses and workers: interim pre-Budget report, HC 1264, and the Government response, HC 119.]
Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1 - Review of Awards

“(1) The Secretary of State must no later than three months following the day on which this Act is passed conduct a review to assess whether sections 15 and 16 of this Act have been interpreted consistently by approved arbitration bodies.
(2) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall have regard to published awards.
(3) If a review under subsection (1) identifies material inconsistencies in the interpretation of sections 15 and 16 of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue further guidance or amend existing guidance to arbitrators about the exercise of their functions under the Act.”—(Seema Malhotra.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of awards to assess whether sections 15 and 16 of the Act have been interpreted consistently and publish or amend guidance as necessary.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Seema Malhotra: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the provisions of this Act shall extend to a business tenancy irrespective of whether the property comprised in the tenancy is occupied by the tenant.”
This amendment broadens the definition of business tenancy to cover arrangements in which the property is not occupied by the tenant.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
“(2B) The Secretary of State must ensure that bodies approved under subsection (1) have sufficient numbers of arbitrators (whether alone or as a member of a panel of arbitrators) required to conduct arbitrations under this Part.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the approved arbitration bodies collectively have sufficient capacity to hear all arbitrations under this Part.
Amendment 10, in clause 9, page 7, line 7, leave out from “beginning” to the end of line 8 and insert “25 March 2022”.
This amendment revises the period for a reference to arbitration to be made in order that it is consistent with the Code of Conduct.
Government amendment 3.
Amendment 14, in clause 11, page 8, line 21, leave out “supporting evidence” and insert
“any evidence relevant to the proposal.”
This amendment would require a formal proposal put forward under this section to be made on an open-book basis.
Amendment 15, in clause 17, page 11, line 13, after “practicable” insert
“and no later than 14 days”.
This amendment would require awards in arbitrations which do not have an oral hearing to be made within 14 days.
Amendment 16, in clause 19, page 12, line 6, replace “may” with “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying limits on arbitration fees.
Amendment 11, page 12, line 13, before “When” insert “Subject to 6A,”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 12.
Government amendments 4 to 6
Amendment 12, page 12, line 19, at end insert—
“(6A) When the arbitrator makes an award under section 13 or 14, the arbitrator may also make an award requiring that a party at fault pays costs which it has caused the other party to incur.
(6B) For the purposes of 6A, a party is at fault where the arbitrator considers that the conduct of the party before or during the proceedings is unreasonable or improper.”
This amendment would empower the arbitrator to make an adverse costs award where the arbitrator considers that a party has acted unreasonably or improperly.
Government amendments 7, 8 and 18 to 21.
Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 19, line 6, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).
This amendment would extend the debt claims over which a party could apply to the court for the proceedings to be stayed to claims made before 10 November 2021.

Seema Malhotra: It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 1 and amendments 9 to 17, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
A process for resolving commercial rent arrears is very much needed, as dealing with the financial pressures brought on by covid is vital for landlords and tenants alike. Against that backdrop, Labour broadly welcomes the Bill, but we believe that the Government can and should do more on business support. That context is important because covid is not over. Business costs continue to rise, and they are also driven by rising fuel costs and inflation. Economic forecasts for the next three to five years project low growth, high inflation and high taxes. Managing financial pressures and supporting viable businesses to do so—that is the helping hand that we need in place as businesses navigate the uncertain road ahead and as some sectors recover faster than others.
To access the opportunities that we seek to ensure that the Bill provides, we need to be sure of the consistency, affordability and accessibility of arbitration and to ensure that the system operates effectively and fairly. On that basis, we have tabled new clause 1 and our other amendments in a positive spirit, to continue the dialogue that we had at the earlier stages of the Bill, because we support it and want it to work as effectively as possible.
On consistency, the Minister will appreciate that there will be retail and hospitality businesses with numerous landlords, and landlords with numerous tenants; businesses may therefore be party to more than one case under the new system. Predictability and consistency will be vital if those businesses are to have faith in the system, so   our new clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of awards to assess whether clauses 15 and 16 have been interpreted consistently. The review would need to be conducted
“no later than three months following the day on which this Act is passed”,
and where the Secretary of State identifies material inconsistencies, he would need to publish or amend guidance to arbitrators as necessary. We believe that such a review would be welcomed by landlords, tenants and arbitrators and would ensure that the system is well understood.
On the accessibility and affordability of the new scheme, the definition of “business tenancy” in clause 2 has important consequences. Only tenancies in which the tenant is in occupation of the property fall within the Bill’s scope and can therefore access the arbitration scheme that it establishes. Let me give the House two examples of circumstances that could fall outside the Bill because of that definition.
First, Sir Paul Morgan, a specialist in property arbitration, has set out the case of a tenant who leaves a property unoccupied because of covid restrictions and does not now intend to reoccupy it when the restrictions end. As Sir Paul explains, the tenant may have a viable business but may not wish to reoccupy the particular premises for which the rent was due. Under the Bill as it stands, there would not be a business tenancy in such a case and the tenant would not be able to claim the benefit of the Bill in relation to that property, where the company was a tenant of that property during the period that is protected.
Secondly, there might be a situation where there is a head lease and a sub-lease on the property, for example where there is a franchising arrangement and the franchisee is the sub-tenant. In such a situation, the head lessee does not occupy the property and therefore could not benefit from the reliefs under the Bill, whereas the sub-tenant could.
Labour’s amendment 9 would fill those gaps, broadening the definition of “business tenancy” to cover arrangements in which the property is not occupied by the tenant. Unless the Minister can confirm that in the examples  I have given it is intended that the leases would fall outside the new regime, I very much hope that the Government will recognise the gap and support our proposed changes.
We have tabled amendment 10, in relation to the period for reference to arbitration, in the same spirit of constructiveness. Clause 9 establishes a six-month period for a tenant or landlord to make a reference to arbitration, for which the clock starts on the day on which the Act is passed. We recognise and support the need to act quickly, but want to ensure that the full six months is available to tenants and landlords. The code of conduct suggests that the arbitration scheme will be operational on 25 March 2022, but what happens if the legislation passes before that date? Will that mean that parties have less than six months to make a reference? What if the legislation is not passed until a later date? Presumably, the current code of conduct would then need to be amended and existing protections extended. Amendment 10 reflects the suggestion by Bill Chandler of Hill Dickinson LLP  that the date for referrals to open be fixed as 25 March 2022 irrespective of whether the legislation is passed. I would be grateful for the Minister’s feedback on that and on the importance of these questions in relation to improving accessibility to and the clarity of the new regime.
Let me turn to the question of cost. The scheme will be a success only if it is affordable. In Committee, the Minister acknowledged the importance of affordability and suggested that he was working with relevant bodies that may be appointed to agree cost schedules. Could the Minister update the House on those discussions? Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State the discretion to specify ceilings for arbitration fees in secondary legislation. Given the concerns of stakeholders and the financial pressures they are facing, the Secretary of State should be required to set a limit on arbitration fees, and that is the intention of amendment 16.
On county court judgments, the Minister will know that many commercial tenants were deeply frustrated that the temporary protections introduced to assist businesses struggling to pay their rent did not include protections against county court judgments and High Court judgments. UKHospitality and others have been calling for this protection for months. While it is welcome that the Government have finally listened to industry and to Labour, and improved the provisions that would stay any debt proceedings made after 10 November, choosing this cut-off date has had some perverse consequences.
As we heard in Committee, the result of this arbitrary date means that any landlord who started proceedings before 10 November is now arguably in a better position than those who held off and pursued negotiations with their tenant. Surely this cannot be the Minister’s intention. As the British Retail Consortium explained, the more aggressive the landlord, the better the position they are now in on county court and High Court judgments. That is why we have tabled amendment 17, which would remove this arbitrary cut-off date. As a result, a party could apply to court to stay any debt claim that is made by a landlord and relates to protected rent debt, pending a resolution whether by negotiation or arbitration. We see this as an issue of basic fairness. Labour does not believe that landlords or tenants should be punished for in effect doing the right thing and seeking to negotiate a settlement.
I turn now to Labour’s amendments designed to ensure that the new scheme operates effectively. First, on arbitrators and arbitration bodies, arbitral bodies and their members will be absolutely critical to the success of this arbitration scheme. The Government have taken a market-based approach to the running of the arbitration scheme, which will have a list of approved arbitral bodies, rather than a single provider. In Committee, we heard the concerns of stakeholders who wanted to understand what skills and expertise would be required of arbitrators. While some thought that financial and accounting qualifications were critical, others suggested that legal qualifications would be paramount given the complexity of the cases. I would welcome any update on the Department’s discussions with stakeholders and about the approval of suitable arbitral bodies.
As well as ensuring that arbitrators are suitably qualified, it is vital that there is sufficient capacity. The Government’s impact assessment assumes 8,200 cases going to arbitration in its central scenario. While the appointed arbitral  bodies will maintain their own lists of arbitrators, in a system where the Secretary of State may appoint several bodies, it is the Secretary of State who ultimately must ensure that there is sufficient capacity. The intention of amendment 13 is to make that an explicit and ongoing duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the arbitral bodies appointed have sufficient numbers of arbitrators to hear and report on all cases as quickly as possible. If the impact assessment’s estimate is too conservative, our amendment would require the Secretary of State to appoint additional arbitral bodies to work with those bodies already appointed to increase their list of approved arbitrators.
Stakeholders have also made it clear to me how vital it is that there is consistency across the new system in how different arbitrators interpret the legislation and any guidance under it. For example, an arbitrator must dismiss a reference to arbitration where it determines that the tenant’s business is not viable. As such, how arbitrators interpret viability is of central importance.
On the conduct of parties, it is welcome news from stakeholders that the vast majority of landlords and tenants have already reached agreement on their covid rent arrears. The British Retail Consortium estimated in December that 80% to 90% of its members had reached agreement. For the minority of businesses that are yet to reach agreement, the arbitration scheme provides a lifeline for an independent and binding arbitration. However, we believe that the Bill could be improved to further ensure a fairer arbitration process.
Clause 11 requires a reference to arbitration to include a formal proposal for resolving the dispute. The other party may then put forward their own counter-proposal. Both must be supported by supporting evidence. However, a requirement to submit supporting evidence is not the same as full disclosure on an open book basis. As the Property Litigation Association makes clear, parties are not required to provide any evidence which might be adverse to their proposal. This lack of an obligation to make full disclosure prevents the other party from making an informed counter-proposal and, arguably, ultimately the swift resolution of the dispute. That is why our amendment 14 revises clause 11 and requires a formal proposal to be accompanied by all evidence relevant to the proposal, whether helpful to that party or not.
We are pleased to see the Government table Government amendment 4. Although a 50-50 split is fair in most cases, it is right that the arbitrator has the power to change how the arbitration fees are split, particularly if one party has acted unreasonably. However, we believe that the Bill should go further than that as it is vital that tenants and landlords are incentivised to approach the arbitration process fairly and in the spirit of resolution. That is why we have tabled amendment 12, which would provide the arbitrator with the power to make an adverse cost award, where one party has caused the other to incur costs by acting unreasonably. As Sir Paul Morgan said in his written evidence, that would be nothing new. In the case of many tribunals where the general rule is that each party will bear its own costs, the tribunal is typically given such a power.
On swift resolution, the regime is intended to deliver swift resolutions for disputes, yet the Bill does not do everything possible to secure them. While clause 17 requires the arbitrator to make their award within 14 days  in a case in which an oral hearing is held, where no oral hearing is held the arbitrator is required to make their award as soon as reasonably practicable. My understanding from debate in Committee is that the likelihood is that most arbitration hearings will not be oral hearings, but on the basis of paperwork. Can the Minister explain the logic here? Why is there no backstop requiring the arbitrator to make their award within a specific timeframe where there is no oral hearing, which, as I say, we understand is expected to be the majority of cases. Labour’s amendment 15 intends to ensure that awards are made within a specific timeframe irrespective of whether there is an oral hearing.
In conclusion, in the current climate viable firms risk going to the wall. We believe that the Government can and should do more. From business rates to energy costs, the Government have let down British businesses and the impacts are now a part of a cumulative rise of cost pressures on businesses. In the context of commercial rent debt, we welcome the relief this Bill offers to commercial tenants facing the risk of eviction, bankruptcy or debt enforcement, and we welcome the prospect of resolution on covid rent arrears offered to landlords and tenants that have not been able to reach agreement. That is why the Opposition have taken a constructive approach to scrutinising this legislation, and I hope that, in recognising the spirit in which our amendments have been tabled, the Minister will respond favourably on the points we have raised today.

Paul Scully: Before I respond to the Opposition amendments, I would first like to thank the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for their continued constructive engagement with the Bill and for their contributions to date.
The Bill is key to ensuring we support viable businesses that will continue to thrive and contribute to our economy in a way that does not risk the insolvency of their commercial landlords. We remain committed to these principles. The arbitration system is designed to be a quick, effective and impartial solution for rent debts that cannot otherwise be resolved, and we currently expect that all applications for arbitration will be made within six months and that cases should be resolved as soon as practicable afterwards.
Requiring a review of the arbitration process within three months of the Bill being enacted could slow down the process by adding additional steps and requirements for arbitrators that have already proved their suitability for the role. It might also delay the resolution of cases while arbitrators await the findings of the review before making awards.
Under the Bill’s existing provisions, the Secretary of State can already request a report from approved arbitration bodies covering the exercise of their functions under the Bill, including details of awards made and the application of the principles set out in the Bill in the arbitrations they oversee.
Additionally, there is a requirement for arbitrators to publish the detail of awards made, including the reasons behind them. This will show how arbitrators have applied the principles of the Bill in coming to their decisions. We will carefully monitor the position, and if there is a  need to revise the guidance, such as to clarify or add new information for arbitrators, the Secretary of State is already able to do so.
I believe that requiring a review would not benefit the aims of the Bill or, indeed, the people who would want to use the new arbitration system to resolve rent disputes, and I therefore hope new clause 1 will be withdrawn.
On amendment 9, as hon. Members will be aware, the Bill defines a business tenancy as a tenancy to which part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies—that is to say it is a tenancy comprised of property that is or includes premises that are occupied by the tenant for business purposes. I reassure hon. Members that the Government intend such property to be considered occupied even if it has been mandated to close for some time in full or in part. A tenant will still be in occupation if they are operating their business remotely and intend to return, so I do not believe amendment 9 is necessary. I hope it will be withdrawn.
I should say that we also anticipate courts will take a pragmatic view of occupancy, given the underlying rationale behind the Bill to introduce a system of binding arbitration for businesses that have built up rent debt as a result of Government-mandated closures.
On amendment 13, the operation of approved arbitration bodies follows a market-based policy approach, leaving it to arbitration bodies to manage their internal capacity processes. Our engagement with arbitration bodies suggests that this is the right approach. Looking purely at the number of arbitrators disregards the fact that an arbitrator will be able to take on more than one case at a time. Although the application process will contain a question on the number of arbitrators available, we recognise that this will provide an under-representative picture of capacity in the market, so I am not able to accept the amendment.
On amendment 10, I am grateful to the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Brentford and Isleworth for seeking to ensure consistency between the Bill and the code of practice. I reassure them that the Government’s intention under both the Bill and the code is for the Bill, including the arbitration system it establishes, to come into force as soon as possible. We want the arbitration system to start as soon as possible given its importance to supporting resolution of protected rent debt and a return to normal market operation. The aim remains to bring the Bill, including the arbitration system, into force by 25 March 2022. That is reflected in the code of practice, as updated on 9 November 2021. I am happy to consider whether clarification would be useful within the code. The code outlines the processes and principles that we are seeking to introduce through the Bill. It has given, and continues to give, businesses the opportunity to negotiate in line with those principles until the Bill comes into force.
The March timing is linked to the expiry of the moratorium on forfeiture and the restrictions on use of the commercial rent arrears recovery regime. The Government have been clear that they intend such measures to remain in place until the Bill is passed, if that is earlier than their expiry.
I turn to amendment 14. Clause 11 as it stands must be read with section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which states:
“It shall be for the tribunal to decide all procedural and evidential matters”.
That provides arbitrators with the discretion to call for further evidence where that is considered necessary. There is also no express limit in the Bill on the types of evidence that parties can put forward to support their proposals. We are aiming for a quick and efficient process to restore businesses to normality. The aim of requiring supporting evidence is therefore to help focus participants’ minds on the most pertinent evidence that will support their proposals. It will have to be sufficient to show why the proposal is consistent with the principles and should be adopted. That will help arbitrators to resolve cases quickly. A widening of the clause could lead the paper-based arbitration process to become lengthy, inefficient and costly for the parties, who must meet their own legal and other costs.
I turn to amendment 15. As I have previously explained, clause 17 establishes the timeframe for making awards, requiring arbitrators to make an award as soon as is practicable, or within 14 days in the case of an oral hearing. While we expect that most cases will be resolved quickly, the clause also provides arbitrators with the necessary flexibility to take additional time to make decisions on more complicated cases. One or both of the parties may each simply submit one formal proposal that is final, or one or both may decide to submit revised proposals as final proposals. They may also agree to extend the time limit for submitting initial or revised proposals. That means that it is hard for an arbitrator to know exactly when final proposals have been submitted and when the clock on the 14-day time limit would start running.
Arbitrators may need to request further information after receiving proposals. It would therefore be impractical to impose a time limit. Imposing a 14-day time limit for issuing awards following an oral hearing, as the Bill does—although the time limit can be extended—is less problematic because the arbitrator will have seen the final proposals and had time to consider them before the hearing. They also have an opportunity to ask questions about them during the hearing, which would conclude on that set date.
On amendment 16, I agree that fee levels are an important consideration. The Bill adopts a market-based approach. Arbitration bodies are best placed to decide on fee levels given their experience in costing arbitration schemes to make it affordable for all and attractive enough for arbitrators to want to take on cases. The Secretary of State’s powers are intended to be used only when circumstances determine that to be appropriate. Setting a limit on fees at this point could reduce the number of arbitrators able to act, which could undermine the arbitration mechanism in the Bill. There is no evidence that such a limit is needed. However, if it is, the Secretary of State is prepared to exercise the power as appropriate based on the available evidence.
On amendments 11 and 12, I agree that it is important to encourage behaviour in line with the code of practice and the Bill’s general principles. A key aim of the Bill is to restore businesses to normality as quickly as possible. We have carefully designed the process with arbitrators to make it quick and cheap to navigate, and accessible without further support. The amendments, however, could result in prolonged arguments on costs, appeals and enforcement, delaying a return to that normality  that we all seek. They could also encourage the use of legal and other support where that is not needed, lengthening the time to resolution and potentially increasing costs for all parties.
The amendments could create a situation in which one party’s viability or solvency could be endangered through having to pay costs other than arbitration fees. Widening the discretion to include other costs could also lead to an uneven playing field, especially for smaller businesses who could end up paying high legal costs for larger companies. Under the Bill, the arbitrator has discretion to deviate from the general rule of evenly splitting the costs of arbitration fees between parties where appropriate, based on the circumstances of the case, such as when one party has not reasonably co-operated.
On amendment 17, the Bill as drafted allows for a stay of debt claims that include ringfenced debt and are issued between 10 November 2021 and the Bill coming into force. The Bill enables ringfenced debt under those claims and under judgments made in respect of such claims to be subject to arbitration. I understand the concern about the date, but it is not an arbitrary date, because 10 November 2021 follows the Bill’s introduction and the Government’s announcement of the policy. The Bill seeks to introduce proportionate measures that address the interests of both landlords and tenants, whereas the amendment would allow for arbitration of protected debt which was subject to earlier proceedings or judgments when the parties could not have known that this was proposed at the time when the proceedings were issued, so reopening those situations.
Let me now deal with the technical amendments tabled by the Government and the substantive amendment that we are tabling at the request of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendments 1 and 2 are technical amendments to make it clear that the definition of “service charge” in clause 2 covers both fixed and variable costs, as well as costs incurred by the landlord insuring against loss of rent. That has always been our intention, and the amendments help to make it clear, ensuring that all relevant costs and charges are within the scope of the arbitration process.
Technical Government amendments 3 and 8 make it clear that the provisions of clauses 10 and 24, in so far as they relate to company voluntary arrangements or certain restructurings, apply to limited liability partnerships. That is in addition to their usual application to companies. These are minor clarificatory amendments to improve the technical drafting of the Bill.
Amendments 4 to 7 are minor and technical, and clarify the operation of arbitration and all hearing fees and expenses. Amendments 4 and 7 make it clear that the general rule is that the party that has paid fees is to be reimbursed half the amount by the other party, but where appropriate, the arbitrator may determine a different proportion, including zero. Amendment 5 makes a small correction to clause 19(6) to make it clear that except for reimbursement of arbitration or oral hearing fees, a party must meet its own legal or other costs. Amendment 6 makes it clear that costs incurred in connection with arbitration are not recoverable under an existing clause in the lease. Allowing cost recovery via the lease concerned would undermine the specific provisions in the Bill on fees, expenses and costs. It would also put the party able to rely on the lease terms at an advantage, as they could  be more confident about investing money in their case, in the knowledge that the costs could ultimately be recovered from the other party. In addition, allowing this could potentially put the viability of the other party at risk, even when an arbitral award had been handed down in that other party’s favour.
I turn now to amendments 18 and 19. The Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Department for the Economy have requested the removal of the existing delegated power for them to make regulations for purposes corresponding to the purposes of the Bill, set out in clause 28. This decision was taken for several reasons, which include the availability of existing dispute resolution facilities, plus a lack of compelling evidence that rent debt in Northern Ireland is on a scale to require additional measures. The rationale for the policy in England and Wales remains strong, and this is where our evidence of rent arrears threatening jobs and business insolvency is focused. The removal of clause 28 necessitates an amendment to the Extent provision in clause 30(2), which currently refers to this provision.
Amendments 20 and 21 ensure that clause 24(4) extends to Northern Ireland in relation to company compromises and arrangements, but not company voluntary arrangements. That reflects the territorial extent of the Companies Act 2006 referred to in this provision.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Seema Malhotra: On the basis of the Minister’s comments, particularly those relating to ongoing review, and other comments relating to the amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 - “Rent” and “business tenancy”

Amendments made: 1,page2,line19, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and insert—
(ii) which is a fixed amount or an amount that varies or may vary according to the relevant costs (or a combination of the two),”.
This amendment clarifies that the expression “service charge” includes any amount payable under the terms of a tenancy for something mentioned in clause 2(2)(c)(i), whether it is a fixed amount or a variable amount (or a combination of a fixed part and a variable part).
Amendment 2,page2,line22, leave out from “costs”” to “in” and insert
“includes costs incurred by the landlord in connection with insuring against loss of rent or”.
This amendment clarifies that the costs of insurance against loss of rent are within the expression “service charge”, in addition to insurance costs relating to the demised premises and any common parts.

Clause 10 - Requirements for making a reference to arbitration

Amendment made: 3,page8,line12, at end insert
“(as well as to companies).”
This is a drafting amendment to make clear that clause 10(6) (which applies provisions of the clause to LLPs) operates in addition to the rest of the clause

Clause 19 - Arbitration fees and expenses

Amendments made: 4,page12, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert
“(subject to subsection (5A)) also make an award requiring the other party to reimburse the applicant for half the arbitration fees paid under subsection (4).
‘(5A) The general rule in subsection (5) does not apply if the arbitrator considers it more appropriate in the circumstances of the case to award a different proportion (which may be zero).’”
This amendment clarifies that the rule in the current clause 19(5)(a) (that the party paying the arbitration fees is to be reimbursed half of the amount) is the general rule, although the arbitrator is able to determine a different proportion, including zero, where appropriate.
Amendment 5,page12,line19, leave out “Otherwise” and insert
“Except as provided by subsection (5) and section 20(6),”.
This corrects a small error in clause 19(6). The word “Otherwise” at the start of clause 19(6) currently refers back to clause 19(5), but it also needs to take account of the provisions of clause 20(6) which makes provision corresponding to clause 19(5) for oral hearing fees.
Amendment 6,page12,line19, at end insert —
“(6A) Legal or other costs incurred in connection with arbitration (including arbitration fees) are not recoverable by virtue of any term of the business tenancy concerned.”
The amendment clarifies that arbitration costs are not recoverable under a tenancy term enabling recovery of enforcement costs relating to a breach of covenant under the tenancy. The parties’ rights and obligations in relation to arbitration costs are governed by clauses 19 and 20.

Clause 20 - Oral hearings

Amendment made: 7,page12, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert
“(subject to subsection (6A)) also make an award requiring the other party to reimburse the applicant for half the hearing fees.
‘(6A) The general rule in subsection (6) does not apply if the arbitrator considers it more appropriate in all the circumstances to award a different proportion (which may be zero).’”
This amendment clarifies that the rule in the current clause 20(6)(a) (that the party paying the oral hearing fees is to be reimbursed half of the amount) is the general rule, although the arbitrator is able to determine a different proportion, including zero, where appropriate.

Clause 24 - Temporary restriction on initiating certain insolvency arrangements

Amendment made: 8,page14,line37, at end insert
“(as well as to companies).”
This is a drafting amendment to make clear that clause 24(4) (which applies provisions of the clause to LLPs) operates in addition to the rest of the clause.

Clause 28 - Power to make corresponding provision in Northern Ireland

Amendment made: 18,page15,line33, leave out clause 28.
The responsible Northern Ireland minister has informed Her Majesty’s Government that the powers to be conferred by clause 28 are no longer needed. This amendment would omit the clause, which would otherwise require the approval of a Legislative Consent Motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Clause 30 - Extent, Commencement and Short Title

Amendments made: 19,page16, leave out lines 14 and 15.
The reference in clause 30(2) to clause 28 is no longer correct if clause 28 is left out of the Bill. The rest of clause 30(2) (which provides that Part 4 of the Bill extends to the whole of the UK) is reproduced in Amendment 20, so the whole of clause 30(2) can be omitted.
Amendment 20,page16, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
“(a) in section 24—
(i) subsections (1), (2)(c) and (3), and
(ii) subsection (4) so far as relating to a compromise or arrangement under section 899 or 901F of the Companies Act 2006,
(b) Part 1 so far as relating to the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a), and
(c) this Part.”
This amendment and Amendment 21 secure that clause 24(4) extends to Northern Ireland in relation to company compromises and arrangements, but not company voluntary arrangements. This is for consistency with the extent of the legislation covering those matters.
Amendment 21,page16, leave out line 21 and insert—
“(a) in section 24—
(i) subsection (2)(a), and
(ii) subsection (4) so far as relating to a company voluntary arrangement,”.—(Paul Scully.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 20.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.

Paul Scully: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a pleasure to lead the Bill on Third Reading. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their support and for the many insightful contributions we have had throughout the Bill’s passage—I say that slightly tongue in cheek, because the Bill has gone through in good time. That is because of the collaboration we have had and the understanding of the need to pass this legislation with good speed, but there has none the less been some really constructive scrutiny. I am especially grateful to the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for their positive engagement throughout.
These debates, and indeed the continued challenges presented by the ongoing pandemic, have emphasised just how important it is that we continue to support tenant and landlord businesses in navigating the impacts of the pandemic. The Bill does that by facilitating the resolution of certain pandemic-related commercial rent debts and supports landlords and tenants on the road to recovery. It is a purposefully focused and narrow Bill, addressing rent debt accrued by businesses mandated to close if that rent debt is attributable to a protected period as set out in the Bill.
The Bill establishes a temporary binding arbitration scheme for such rent debt, which will be delivered by independent arbitral bodies. There has been welcome  debate about the specifics of the scheme, especially around the fees, as well as about the ability of arbitrators to determine the viability of businesses. We will continue to assess the impact of the cost of arbitration on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to ensure that the binding arbitration scheme is not prohibitively priced. Guidance will be published for arbitrators, with comprehensive input and engagement from arbitrators themselves. Arbitral bodies will be empowered to deliver the scheme with confidence.
Following agreement on Report, we have made some technical amendments to better achieve the aims of the scheme. Those minor changes include clarifying certain provisions, including the definition of “service charge”, but we have also made a more substantial amendment in removing the delegated power for Northern Ireland to introduce similar provisions to those in the Bill. That was done at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive. They initially looked at this and wanted to be included, but as they looked further they realised that sufficient provisions were already in place. However, we are grateful for their engagement on the Bill.
The outstanding commercial rent debt still poses a significant threat to commercial tenants and landlords in England and Wales. I welcome the recognition from both sides of the House of the need for the Bill.
I thank the Clerks of the House for expertly steering the legislation through the House. I also thank my private office—Rhianna Patel and Guy Brindle—and the officials who have worked on the Bill: Charles McCall, Carl Creswell, Jessica Barnaby, Radhika Sundaram, Hamza Shoaib, Geraldine Haden, Jane Chelliah-Manning, Matthew Beese, Henry Hutton, Louise Dobrin, Sarah Machen and Jahan Meeran.
This Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting the orderly resolution of commercial rent debt accrued during the pandemic, and I am pleased to have supported its passage. On that basis, I commend it to the House,

Seema Malhotra: As we move on to Third Reading I would like to thank the Minister for his engagement with us and for meeting us outside the formal Committee and other stages of the Bill. I also thank the Whips on both sides, the civil servants, the Clerks of the House, all those who gave evidence, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and all colleagues who contributed to proceedings on the Bill.
Labour supports the Bill. Where we believe that it could be further improved we have laid out our arguments, and I hope that such debate will be helpful as the Bill is taken forward in the other place. Labour recognises the need for a fair arbitration system to deal with these difficult rent arrears. No otherwise viable business should face an overwhelming burden from rent arrears incurred as a result of a very difficult time during lockdown and through no fault of their own. Neither should those businesses feel that they are on their own without due arbitration, without a burden-sharing process and without a Government and a Parliament on their side. At the same time, we recognise that commercial landlords also need a clear and predictable mechanism through which to seek to recoup levels of rent arrears fairly, recognising the ability to pay as viable businesses navigate the ups and downs of our economic recovery.
Crucially, the guiding mechanism of any arbitration system must ultimately be fairness and must be in the long-term interests of British businesses and jobs. By ensuring that the arbitration process must aim to preserve viable businesses and do so fairly, while also preserving landlords’ solvency, the Bill offers a balanced arbitration process. As such we support it.
The timing of the Bill, however, was somewhat disappointing, because we called for action over rent debt and wider business costs earlier last summer, ahead of the end of restrictions; indeed, I met with UKHospitality, the British Beauty Council, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Night Time Industries Association and many others. The Minister will have had such meetings too, and heard of the huge ongoing burden that businesses were facing over rent payments; yet it seemed to take the Government months after we, and other stakeholders, made that call to produce the Bill and to set out the arbitration process for rent arrears. In that time, the covid pandemic continued to hit businesses hard, in sometimes predictable and sometimes unpredictable ways as new waves were coming through, particularly those on the frontline of our high streets and communities.
Rent debt remains a heavy burden for those businesses and their commercial landlords. Indeed, the Bill’s impact assessment notes that, according to the Treasury analysis, the total amount of deferred rent liabilities may be at around £9 billion by March 2022. It is likely that businesses and landlords could have been helped by the legislation being introduced a little earlier, but we move forward, and as the Bill moves forward the issues around affordability and accessibility should be further tested. The Minister alluded to that in his speech on Third Reading.
Businesses up and down the country have had a very tough Christmas period, despite the period of October to the new year being called the golden quarter for many hospitality and retail businesses, in which they hope enough revenue can be made, particularly in December, to make up for and steer through the fallow months of January and February. That period has been incredibly difficult this time around. UKHospitality found that the average hospitality venue lost over £10,000 in the weeks leading up to Christmas, with Christmas day takings down 60% compared with those in 2019. A December survey—the period between some of the stages of the Bill—by the Night Time Industries Association found that the outstanding business debt from their members was, on average, around over £200,000 per unit.
Businesses need help with their rent debt, but they will not be able to access it if the cost of arbitration in the Bill is too high. It is vital that the Government continue to listen to the views of Members of this House, and Ministers should ensure that arbitration fees are capped. It is also vital that all viable businesses can access the arbitration process, including those that no longer occupy their premises. I heard what the Minister said in relation to how the courts might interpret that in the context of the intentions behind the Bill, but that issue may well be raised further in the other place. The Government must ensure that there are enough arbitrators, as we have raised, to deal with all cases, and that the arbitration system works consistently and fairly.
We recognise that, as the scheme comes in over March and into April, businesses will also be hit by the hike in national insurance contributions, as well as the  ongoing labour shortages, supply chain shortages, rising prices and rising inflation. It is why, in the context of business cost challenges, we continue to believe that the hike in national insurance contributions will be the wrong move at the wrong time. It will be right when viable businesses, we hope, start to recover, and when the arbitration process comes in and they are expected to repay any rent arrears. It is critical that any arbitration system that is created is administered within the context of a wider supportive environment for businesses. I hope that the Minister will keep that under review, and perhaps raise the issue with his Treasury colleagues.
Labour supports the Bill, which addresses a commercial issue on which we have called for action. It provides a fair system for helping landlords and tenants to find a solution to rent arrears under a binding arbitration system. Its measures must be kept under review so that the outcomes that it is intended to achieve are supported, and the process does not otherwise become one that loses the confidence of those it is there to support. On that basis, I wish colleagues in the other place every success in their ongoing scrutiny of the Bill as it moves forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Glue Traps (Offences) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or another public authority; and
any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jo Churchill.)

Glue Traps (Offences) Bill (Ways  and Means)

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees and other charges under the Act.—(Jo Churchill.)

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Ms Theresa Middleton CBE be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 27 January 2022 to 26 January 2027.
Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, provides that three lay members should be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. On 26 January 2022, Mr Shrinivas Honap’s term as a lay member of SCIPSA will come to an end. I would like to thank him very much for his very distinguished service, which he continues to this House as a lay member of the Commission.
When vacancies arise, the statute requires that members be selected by Mr Speaker through a process of open and fair competition. Therefore, in line with the statute, a process has been conducted on merit, and on the basis of fair and open competition, to find his replacement. Subject to the agreement of the House today, Ms Theresa Middleton CBE will become the new lay member of SCIPSA.
An explanatory memorandum is available to Members in the Vote Office. Hon. and right hon. Members will note that Ms Theresa Middleton is a recently retired director at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for which she had worked since 1999. She has extensive financial and programme management experience, particularly of large and complex transformation projects, having been director of a major HMRC tax transformation project.
The recruitment board felt that Ms Middleton’s experience, temperament and professionalism would make her an asset to SCIPSA, that she would be able to provide challenge with confidence, insight and authority and that her experience and expertise would complement the skills and qualities of the existing lay members. Subject to the agreement of the House today, we wish Ms Middleton well in this role, and I commend the motion to the House.

Thangam Debbonaire: I rise briefly to support the motion. As the Leader of the House has outlined, there has been a fair and rigorous process. It has been done entirely in accordance with statute. I just wish to add for the record our thanks on behalf of the Commission and the House to the board members who conducted the recruitment competition, chaired by Clerk Assistant Sarah Davies. We thank our former colleague, Sir David Crausby, Diana DeCoteau, head of reward and employee engagement, and Isabel Doverty, independent panel member. I know that a fair and rigorous recruitment process takes time, thought and effort, and I wish to add for the record our thanks to them. I look forward to working with Ms Middleton soon on SCIPSA.

Richard Thomson: I echo what has been said and offer my thanks to those involved in the recruitment process and to those who have given their service. I also pass on our best wishes to Ms Middleton, who seems to be an eminently suitable appointee for the role.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Member give way?

Richard Thomson: I had just finished, but I will find something else to say.

John Spellar: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I have no knowledge of or animus towards the individual concerned, but once again it is the great and the good. She is someone who has just recently retired from HMRC. How cosy that they all slot into these positions. It is never truck drivers who are keeping the country going, or nursing sisters who are keeping the health service going, or those from a whole range of occupations—it is always out of the quangocrats and retired civil servants. I would hope that the Scottish National party and our own Front Benchers would be saying, “We need a broader range of people in public appointments, and not just the same merry-go-round of the great and the good”—however good they may be, and who knows whether they are great.

Richard Thomson: I feel like I have been given an unexpected opportunity to hold court, which I shall not take. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is correct: we are very much of a bias towards the good, rather than the great, and it is perhaps unfair to load all those concerns on to this particular appointment. I am sure  the Leader of the House will have plenty to say in response to that. All public appointments, in our opinion, should be drawn from the truest possible breadth and depth of the talent that is available.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House we shall take motions 7 and 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Civil Aviation

That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services Licence Modification Appeals) (Prescribed Aerodromes) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 15 November 2021, be approved.

Enterprise

That the draft Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and Pubs Code etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 30 November 2021, be approved.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
Question agreed to.

Adjournment

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
House adjourned.